Why I still like Windows

[racso39]

And I say STILL because I'm not sure if I will ever make the switch, but I'm not quitting it yet.

1) Windows might be unstable, but is very easy to use, and I bet Mac is too.

My frustrations started when I wasn't able to put the resolution I wanted (1280x1024), even when I figure out how to install envy and do the work for me, I had to type some sudo blah blah on terminal to change something in something called "xorg", typing the resolution I wanted (O_o) and the sync for my monitor, I mean, what the hell...

I can't create folders in the / zone, I mean, I read a guide saying "create a folder in the root folder" and also "I am assuming you are as root user", what the hell man, can you explain me also how I use the root user? Finally I found the root user, is the administrator, but can't log in as a normal user, Ubuntu would not let me).

2) The Terminal is for geeks

Average user would just have to copy and paste codes that find on numerous guides on the Internet, that takes times, and time is precious, so now I have to sit down and learn lots and lots of codes to be able to unfold Linux for my convenience, that is sad, I'm not a geek.

3) I like to play games from time to time

Can you make Guild Wars to run on Ubuntu as easy as on Windows? I know GW is not released for Linux, and probably never as the petition started on 2005 and still nothing from ArenaNet, but emulating it is tricky. If you like to play games, forget about Linux.

4) Some of my windows on Ubuntu won't open

Very annoying, and weird as my installation is just 1 day fresh and I haven't done anything but install my video card drivers, if you wish to help me on this issue please visit my post "Closing windows" on the Desktop Environment thread.

Overall, I'm not saying, again, I will quit on Ubuntu, but XP and even more, Vista, are very easy to use, Vista might eat a lot of resources, but I think Linux is not made for REAL End Users, is just for geeks. So probably going to trash money to get Vista, while still using Ubuntu in a modest space of my HD.

[kelvin spratt]

i'm not a geek thank you very much Ubuntu is simple to use its different but simple, it took me a day to get windows to accept and set up my ATI card Ubuntu just switched it on and wala it worked from the box. you have to learn new things but its not hard or if you are not motivated enough remove it and buy vista.

[karellen]

I understand many of your complains. but the main problem I see with Linux is not that it's hard to use or user-unfriendly (I'm not bothered by the termina - but again, I'm pretty tech savvy, so probably that's why), there are 2 "grey areas" where is room for many improvements:
- hardware support (official drivers and so)
- software environment (high quality applications released by their makers for linux, like specialized programs - cad, video editing and so)
until I won't be able to plug in a webcam and use it like I do with yahoo messenger, Linux we'll have a long way to go (for me)...
the fact is that for all the aforementioned problems, the solution is simple (even not free like linux is): windows...
and here is where the circle ends and the catch-22 begins

[BoyOfDestiny]

And I say STILL because I'm not sure if I will ever make the switch, but I'm not quitting it yet.

1) Windows might be unstable, but is very easy to use, and I bet Mac is too.

My frustrations started when I wasn't able to put the resolution I wanted (1280x1024), even when I figure out how to install envy and do the work for me, I had to type some sudo blah blah on terminal to change something in something called "xorg", typing the resolution I wanted (O_o) and the sync for my monitor, I mean, what the hell...

I can't create folders in the / zone, I mean, I read a guide saying "create a folder in the root folder" and also "I am assuming you are as root user", what the hell man, can you explain me also how I use the root user? Finally I found the root user, is the administrator, but can't log in as a normal user, Ubuntu would not let me).

2) The Terminal is for geeks

Average user would just have to copy and paste codes that find on numerous guides on the Internet, that takes times, and time is precious, so now I have to sit down and learn lots and lots of codes to be able to unfold Linux for my convenience, that is sad, I'm not a geek.

3) I like to play games from time to time

Can you make Guild Wars to run on Ubuntu as easy as on Windows? I know GW is not released for Linux, and probably never as the petition started on 2005 and still nothing from ArenaNet, but emulating it is tricky. If you like to play games, forget about Linux.

4) Some of my windows on Ubuntu won't open

Very annoying, and weird as my installation is just 1 day fresh and I haven't done anything but install my video card drivers, if you wish to help me on this issue please visit my post "Closing windows" on the Desktop Environment thread.

Overall, I'm not saying, again, I will quit on Ubuntu, but XP and even more, Vista, are very easy to use, Vista might eat a lot of resources, but I think Linux is not made for REAL End Users, is just for geeks. So probably going to trash money to get Vista, while still using Ubuntu in a modest space of my HD.

1) Debatable. You are used to it.
Product loyalty: consumers mistake familiarity with superiority
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070605-product-loyalty-consumers-mistake-familiarity-with-superiority.html

Making a folder in / is a special case. If I'm not mistaken only an admin in windows can mess around with System32 folder etc. Now you could run as admin all the time in Windows which isn't a good idea, and you can do the same in linux by making a root pass. Ubuntu has root account disabled by default (with good reason) Same with MS Vista doing uac or whatever it is. Anyway, in the mean time you can launch nautilus as root,
gksudo nautilus, and I believe they will add an option for "run nautilus as admin" in future to make this easy.


Though, one can certainly run into headaches with every OS or computers in general I'd bet. There is certainly room for improvement.

2) Cutting and pasting is much much harder than going through an application, with nested menus, and/or with different windows popping up, and telling where people should click? I'd disagree on this point.

3) Yes, games designed for Microsoft Windows only don't run out of the box on Linux. Sucks I know. Either WINE has to improve, or companies release games natively. Some do.

4) No question needing closed video drivers, installing them, is a pain. Bugs? Only the company that released it has the code, and only they can fix it. Linux developers hands are tied. I use an intel chipset 945gm, Ubuntu gives me 3D out of the box (open source drivers). Does that help you or make it great for other users... Nope, either nvidia has to help or the open source reverse engineered drivers will improve enough to run your card well. All I could do was vote with my wallet.

Anyway, your opinion, but I find Ubuntu perfect for regular users, the two I switched, I don't have to maintain the machine, help with drivers and updates, and any crap. Your mileage may vary. But for users that don't even think about tinkering in /root... ;) It's great.

Also, good luck with Ubuntu, hopefully the bugs will get fixed. Make sure to keep filing bug reports and suggestions. I'm happy to say the current testing version (the one that comes out in October) fixed my only complaint. I had to install i915resolution on my laptop to get full res... Now everything works out of the box, zero config. With the new xorg, hopefully the days of meddling with xorg.conf are coming to a close too... So keep at it, and give it time. Now if you go back to 2004, Ubuntu didn't eject CD's when pressing the physical button (only by right click on the icon). Nautilus could not change folder permissions recursively... How about no upgrade manager, and modifying sources.list. Things of the past (unless you really want to do it like that I guess... :) )

[karellen]

But for users that don't even think about tinkering in /root... It's great.
until they found out that their scanner/all-in-one printer doesn't work well, their webcam it's not supported or they won't be able to transfer files in pidgin...well these are very end-user features. not mentioning games

[dayhawk4]

I have read through all of the posts here and am a little disheartened. I use to work as a Microsoft Technician, and have had to send many end users through different problems. There are many things windows is not user friendly with even now. Currently, as of XP anyhow, windows doesn't defrag its hard-drive. If you don't go in and manually tell it to defrag, the system gets slower and slower until it crashes. Not cool. Linux with ext3 self defrags. I have never had a windows system be able to run over a day without noticing a great decay in performance. The solution to everything is to reboot the computer. As early as 6 years ago, I ran a server which was used extensively for writing math papers among other things run six months solid without any decrease in performance. Unfortunately, the fan in the power supply finally died, and I had to turn it off to install another fan:(. Also, unlike Vista, linux doesn't check every piece of your hardware 30 times a second to see if you have something that your not allowed to have (check some of the information on Digital Rights Management, and how it is implemented. The CEO of ATI for example has a lot to say on this topic. Less performance, more expense, and linux incompatible if you want to work with windows. Additionally, if windows thinks something is going on, it disables a good part of your system....user friendly?)
There are some things which don't work on linux currently. I personally do have a windows system running because of special hardware which I can't get drivers for on any other system. It is unfortunate. However, I do what I can on linux because I can see the writting on the wall. I have upgraded my operating system to many times only to find out that I also have to upgrade all of my software. Now, everyone wants to get paid every year. Four or five hundred dollars for a base system. On a Microsoft upgrade year, it can be over a thousand, and that is for one machine without upgrading the hardware. I remember when $300. was a lot for a computer.............


How much money do you have.................
Is your webcam worth $1000. a year.... when it works.....

Do you have any other choice?

[Motoxrdude]

To make a folder in "/" go to your terminal.
sudo mkdir /(name of folder)
not to hard.

Linux is like riding a bike, hard to start but once you learn it's easy. Same goes with everything.

[BoyOfDestiny]

until they found out that their scanner/all-in-one printer doesn't work well, their webcam it's not supported or they won't be able to transfer files in pidgin...well these are very end-user features. not mentioning games

They don't play any Windows only games. All the hardware in the house, works plug and play (including wireless and video). HP Color Laserjet 2605n and several epson scanners (which work when just plugged). As I said, your mileage may vary. It would take more effort to get these running on Windows (even if that just means popping in a driver disc, and a reboot, it's still more) Any problems you mentioned deal with hardware support (very valid, but I spend a couple of minutes on google or browse the forum before investing any cash in new hardware or at least look for things that say plug and play for win or mac not requiring install, things like memory card readers and controllers been out of the box for me too...) I would give the same advice to any user of Windows, especially its newest incarnation. Linux is not a panacea, but I wouldn't call Windows the end-all solution.

[karellen]

They don't play any Windows only games. All the hardware in the house, works plug and play (including wireless and video). HP Color Laserjet 2605n and several epson scanners (which work when just plugged). As I said, your mileage may vary. It would take more effort to get these running on Windows (even if that just means popping in a driver disc, and a reboot, it's still more) Any problems you mentioned deal with hardware support (very valid, but I spend a couple of minutes on google or browse the forum before investing any cash in new hardware or at least look for things that say plug and play for win or mac not requiring install, things like memory card readers and controllers been out of the box for me too...) I would give the same advice to any user of Windows, especially its newest incarnation. Linux is not a panacea, but I wouldn't call Windows the end-all solution.

for the vast majority of users, it's the only thing they know. they have no idea about a choice, even if all they do is surf the net. they are not aware. and probably they don't care. I use linux since 2004, I use exclusively for almost a year suse 9.2, but stil there's many many things to be improved. but

[karellen]

for the vast majority of users, it's the only thing they know. they have no idea about a choice, even if all they do is surf the net. they are not aware. and probably they don't care. I use linux since 2004, I use exclusively for almost a year suse 9.2, but still there's many many things to be improved. but stil there are many many things to be improved. however I'm not complaining, I take the best part of it and enjoy as much as I can. the freedom linux gives you is more important than the time spent to learn something new; the sad thing is the end users don't care about these sort of things. it's not important that it's not linux's fault that a gadget or piece of hardware doesn't work in linux, the fact is it can't be used, at least at full capacity. so they all end up using windows...

[karellen]

yeap, silly me. posted twice and twice incomplete

[BoyOfDestiny]

yeap, silly me. posted twice and twice incomplete

That's ok, I know what you are getting at. A lot of times if it works it seems like "luck" since the user likely picked them and didn't think twice if it would work on other OS's.
Fortunately, in my case, even in those situations where I didn't plan, Ubuntu has worked on several boxes and several generations and different chipsets (both intel and amd in my case).

There are still Windows machines here, if I pop in the Ubuntu livecd, it works on them too.
As hardware starts labeling, I've seen this on some usb keys of mine, where it says it works with win9x/XP, OSX. and Linux v2.6 or later. That will hopefully remove the doubt, gee will this work if I switch to Linux or on my box at home...

People don't go to an Apple store, bring home parts, and then wonder why Windows won't run this. Or pick up a ps2 game and wonder why their gamecube doesn't play it. I'm exaggerating with the examples, but hopefully when they see the box, or pick the item on the web, it will be mentioned. As for the software, if you've been using Linux since 2004, you've seen the difference a few years make.

In the meantime, hardware without drivers, no open specs, or proprietary protocols and formats, and apps without ports... Will always require tinkering, or just picking something else...

I tried Linux on and off since 2000, 2005 I switched to it exclusively thanks to Ubuntu. As much as I like to tinker, Ubuntu basically came to the rescue for me. Simple install, plug and play worked, no business with root user etc, 64-bit support. graphics acceleration, etc. It's improved much, the bugs I filed back then and many others are fixed now. Go back a few years and you'll find people saying how hard it was to install Linux, even with hardware that'd work fine when you got it up and running... Hopefully 3D and wireless complaints will be the next "issues" to go...

EDIT: Ok you finished your post, I love the freedom Linux and the GNU apps give. I'm not stuck on one platform, and it's likely (if at least one person cares) software won't just disappear. I have too many old games running in emulators, that otherwise would be lost if not for emulation of the hardware/software, reverse engineering, or the authors (if they owned the rights, releasing the code) One game I've played since I was 5, even moved it from computer to computer (5.25" floppy to 3.5" to cd and usb key) (even to my college computer lab machine...) Sopwith, the author GPL'd it. It's in the repos, both 32 and 64-bit ports, CGA graphics (4 colors). This surprised me when I saw it (there is even a port that runs on gameboy advance), but it's another perk to having the source out there. Forget about the lack of needing "registration codes" and other things like that. So many perks when things are open. :)

[Sweet Mercury]

And I say STILL because I'm not sure if I will ever make the switch, but I'm not quitting it yet.

1) Windows might be unstable, but is very easy to use, and I bet Mac is too.


2) The Terminal is for geeks


3) I like to play games from time to time


4) Some of my windows on Ubuntu won't open

There are definitely a whole host of reasons to like Windows. I'm on an XP machine right now, my desktop of several years, and I've never had any issues with it. Great OS. I wished they didn't plan on ending support for it.

1) XP is, in my experience, very stable. As stable as Mac claims to be (and I suppose is), and as stable as Linux has been for me. However, I agree with BoyOfDestiny, you might be equating familiarity with superiority.

There is a strong learning curve when switching from Windows to Linux, which may be especially shocking because a lot of the actual environment looks and works like windows.

2) Not necessarily. That actually may be so in Windows, and possibly for the Unix-shell in Mac, but it's actually pretty well integrated into the OS in Linux. File Management? Yeah, using the terminal for that is going to be pretty unnecessary since Nautilus or Thunar do the same things. However, the CL is great for entering commands you might not understand in a tech-help situation, and after you use it for a while you'll discover how a little terminal knowledge really makes using the OS easy, easier even then the strict GUI in Windows.

3) This one is tough. I'm not a PC gamer so I don't miss much here, and WINE has yet to work successfully for me in my experimentation with it. Your best bet here is probably going to be a dual-boot scenario (the new hardware that most gamers use should be able to handle this) and maybe even something like VMware.

4) This might be an actual tech-issue, a bug or something. Windows seems to have less of those.

[karellen]

as far as I'm concerned I'll find the dual-boot solution the best. this way I can use the features of both os's (ubuntu and xp, I don't want to hear about vista)

[BoyOfDestiny]

as far as I'm concerned I'll find the dual-boot solution the best. this way I can use the features of both os's (ubuntu and xp, I don't want to hear about vista)

With dual-cores out now, and kernel virtualization baked in, if I had to run Vista or XP, I'd put it in a virtual machine, like qemu or Virtual Box.

If in these VMs USB support becomes top notch, and 3D acceleration works inside, I'd start recommending this over dual boot to those with the hardware.

When I was dual-booting, I rarely would boot into the other OS. It wasn't until that I had Ubuntu as the main install (on my laptop at first), that I really appreciated it, and wanted to make it the primary OS on my desktop too.

[karellen]

With dual-cores out now, and kernel virtualization baked in, if I had to run Vista or XP, I'd put it in a virtual machine, like qemu or Virtual Box.

If in these VMs USB support becomes top notch, and 3D acceleration works inside, I'd start recommending this over dual boot to those with the hardware.

When I was dual-booting, I rarely would boot into the other OS. It wasn't until that I had Ubuntu as the main install (on my laptop at first), that I really appreciated it, and wanted to make it the primary OS on my desktop too.

I don't know how well my old p4 2.4 ghz will manage a virtual machine...:D
but sounds interesting, even if I never any virtualisation

[smoker]

I don't know how well my old p4 2.4 ghz will manage a virtual machine...:D
but sounds interesting, even if I never any virtualisation

hi, Virtualbox is pretty easy to setup and run, and it is in the repository. you can also download a windows and a mac version from their website. i think the processor speed counts less than the amount of ram, and graphics memory you allocate to your virtual machine. more info here:
http://www.virtualbox.org/

[karellen]

hi, Virtualbox is pretty easy to setup and run, and it is in the repository. you can also download a windows and a mac version from their website. i think the processor speed counts less than the amount of ram, and graphics memory you allocate to your virtual machine. more info here:
http://www.virtualbox.org/

ram - 512 mb...
I'll stick with dual-booting for now as I like things clearly separated..:D. when I'll purchase a faster machine (I want a notebook) I'll play a little with virtual machines

[Contrarian]

To make a folder in "/" go to your terminal.
sudo mkdir /(name of folder)
not to hard.

Linux is like riding a bike, hard to start but once you learn it's easy. Same goes with everything.

Windows: Right click -> new folder (wait a sec for the folder to show up) -> name the folder.

Not only is that easier, but it's user intuitive. The common tasks are available from a right click and many other ways to do the same task. Linux you have to figure out that you need to raise permisions and then what the syntax for the makedir command is. Yes, this is harder for the new person and even the occasional user. End of story. Unless you're some freak evolution with innate unix skillz hardwired into your brain, it's not immediately as intuitive as windows. Sorry. Do not argue this. MS has spent millions and millions of dollars doing user interface design research. The most this was probably considered on unix was probably $5 spent by one programmer over a burger with another programmer at lunch.


Linux is a great concept, but unfortunately it was based off of Unix. Unix is just an outdated anti-intuitive interface. Period. I have to say in the end, MS had the right long term choice to completely scrap DOS (when they choose 95 not to sit on top of DOS but to be it's own complete OS). The dir structure, command syntaxes need to be tossed and redone in a way that makes it easier and more intuitive.

I mean for god's sake, how many BIN directories do you need? bin, sbin, /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, /usr/bin/laden

[PIzano]

I'm a relative newbie when it comes to Linux. I've been using windows since 3.1 and have learned everything under the sun about it. I started experimenting with Linux in the 90's when I was big into IRC and messing around with D.O.S. attacks (I know it's lame, I've grown up, I promise.). I have always been captivated by the capabilities of Linux or really it's community of programmers due to their ability to essentially, in my opinion, make hardware do what ever the heck they want. I attribute those skills to the fact that Linux is opened source. I do think that Linux is more for the technically minded individual, however that seems to be changing everyday. I myself have finally make the switch thanks to Ubuntu, and not regretted it. I don't think Linux is right for everyone, not yet, and I still dual boot my desktop for application specific tasks(i.e.: 3dsmax). From my experience, however, Linux is the better OS. The only problem I see with Linux is obviously the lack of hardware support, and support from major software developers. With those two things, Microsoft's grasp of the market would definitely dwindle. And in regards to all the /bin/ directories; thank god for them. I'm not the most organized person and I've definitely paid for that under the Windows OS, but with Linux everything is structured and efficient. Read up on the file system and you'll see that there is a definite method to the madness.

[FoolsGold_MKII]

Good thing I'm a geek then. There's a reason Windows had become so dull - encapsulating the workings of the system is fine for the typical population, but it's boring as hell for me, hence the move to Linux.

As for getting rid of Unix, ain't gonna happen, otherwise it's not Linux.

[Dr. C]

I don't know how well my old p4 2.4 ghz will manage a virtual machine...:D
but sounds interesting, even if I never any virtualisation

You will not have any problem with XP as long as you have enough RAM. I run Windows XP pro in VMWare Server on Ubuntu Feisty and it runs just fine. My System a P4 1.8 GHz with 1.5GB of RAM.(I gave XP 512 MB of RAM)

As for Windows Vista on my hardware it is doable but just barely and it is quite slow. I actually made this post from Vista (Evaluation copy of Ultimate) running in VMware on Ubuntu Feisty. In this case I gave the Vista VM 768 MB RAM.

I am at the end of my evaluation of Vista. Will I upgrade my Windows XP Virtual Machine to Vista, no way. It really has very little to offer over XP and no end of problems most of which are ultimatly due to DRM.

[cowkiller]

Windows: Right click -> new folder (wait a sec for the folder to show up) -> name the folder.

Not only is that easier, but it's user intuitive. The common tasks are available from a right click and many other ways to do the same task. Linux you have to figure out that you need to raise permisions and then what the syntax for the makedir command is. Yes, this is harder for the new person and even the occasional user. End of story. Unless you're some freak evolution with innate unix skillz hardwired into your brain, it's not immediately as intuitive as windows. Sorry. Do not argue this. MS has spent millions and millions of dollars doing user interface design research. The most this was probably considered on unix was probably $5 spent by one programmer over a burger with another programmer at lunch.



Yeah sure it's intuitive... but anyway, you can create a folder in ubuntu that same way.

Let's say that you wanna watch a movie in mpeg or divx, and you have absolutely no idea about using a pc. Windows would tell you "no codecs suitable for this file" or something alike. So you click here and there through its incredibly intuitive interface.... finding nothing... :(
Optionally... you can look in the internet for any codeck pack on internet... good luck, and don't install any spyware, hopefully.

The same case in ubuntu would pop up a menu, telling you that you need some codecs to play that media, and click ok to allow the system to install them. End of the story.


And I dunno the rest, but I don't have innate unix skillz hardwired into my brain, I just copy and paste to the terminal commands that I find in howtos, and it's really helpful when I have to do or fix tricky things.
How do you make it in Windows?
Probably you can look for any windows help community, but since people can't gain access to the windows sourcecode or most of its apps, I think they would give very little help.

[kamaboko]

Yeah sure it's intuitive... but anyway, you can create a folder in ubuntu that same way.

Let's say that you wanna watch a movie in mpeg or divx, and you have absolutely no idea about using a pc. Windows would tell you "no codecs suitable for this file" or something alike. So you click here and there through its incredibly intuitive interface.... finding nothing... :(
Optionally... you can look in the internet for any codeck pack on internet... good luck, and don't install any spyware, hopefully.

The same case in ubuntu would pop up a menu, telling you that you need some codecs to play that media, and click ok to allow the system to install them. End of the story.


You jest of course. In every instance that I've needed a codec for Ubuntu, I've had to hunt it down. It just said, "a missing codec is required to run .....". Never, ever, ever, has it just given me a pop up window with a link to the codec for an instant install.

[BoyOfDestiny]

You jest of course. In every instance that I've needed a codec for Ubuntu, I've had to hunt it down. It just said, "a missing codec is required to run .....". Never, ever, ever, has it just given me a pop up window with a link to the codec for an instant install.

The Easy Installation of codecs is in the more recent versions (Feisty and Gutsy). Before you were basically out of luck unless you knew what to grab (and repos to enable). Now it holds your hand, enables restricted repos and grabs what's needed. Has a couple of neat meta-packages now with most commonly used codecs too.

There are screencaps and description here:
http://fosswire.com/2007/04/22/feisty-fawn-and-media-formats/

[sauronsmatrix]

1) Windows might be unstable, but is very easy to use, and I bet Mac is too.

Actually, Ubuntu is very easy to use, doesnt lag or crash [unless emulating in Wine xD], and Macs suck.

2) The Terminal is for geeks

I never have to use the Terminal, only rarely, and it is quite an easy thing to use. I learned the basics in like 2 minutes.

3) I like to play games from time to time

Wine, Crossover and other progs emulate to a point where i am getting BETTER results than i did in windows. In fact, I was able to run at lowest settings only in Windows in Warcraft III, and now I am running in the highest settings.

4) Some of my windows on Ubuntu won't open
.... Thats just dumb. My copy works perfectly. Sucks balls for you.

Another thing is that Ubuntu is VERY FAST and requires such low HDD space. It is the best OS i have ever used.

[sprwaka]

Sure, some stuff is not easy, The learning curve for linux is harder than windows where you just press ctrl+alt+del and everything gets fix.???

But the real deal is are you willing to continue paying for stuff more less well done. I'm guessing you answer is "YES". Well, like some in one if this forum say. Linux is not trying to substituted Windows XP or Vista. So if you like it good, if not the just keep doing your simple stuff.:wink::wink:

[DrEmpire]

i still "like" windows cuz i love games and multiplayer games :O),otherwise i can do everything on ubuntu tho saying that i do love the bbc site and i dont think it works to well with firefox,though not many poeple here whould like me to say bd things about firefox but i really dont like it, i prefear ie(shocking)and opera i love opera :O)

[Ringi]

I am glad that someone likes Windows, Bill are getting pretty lonely out there :)
"There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go."
• - Bill Gates

[tashmooclam]

Windows XP is like a poor copy of Apple system 9. XP does work, results vary.
Mac is nice, but there is a price tag for it. I've used Apple system 10 and it's fine.
My reason for trying Linux is my constant problems with XP. Specifically, I cannot fathom why anyone puts up with spyware, viruses, etc.
I needed a laptop. So, either buy a fancy Apple or try a cheap Dell and Linux. I decided to try cheap and intriguing. I can always fall back to Apple if the going gets rough, ha ha.
Basically "curiosity killed the cat".

[kamaboko]

Had a friend yesterday try and give me a bad time. He saw my laptop had Windows Home XP. He also had his MacBook with him at the time. For several minutes he gloated about how superior Mac is to Windows, and then guess what happened? Yep, his Mac sputtered...froze...then....completely crashed. I, on the other hand, didn't have this problem. Suffice it to say, he didn't say another word about his Mac other than..."this is so rare....I can't believe it...really this is rare". Yeah, right.

[tashmooclam]

With XP your results will always vary.
My experience was the opposite. My previous Apple experience was great. Now I have XP Pro.
Something corrupted my sound, so I can't use Skype anymore.
The wireless card stopped working. Can't make it work, gave up. Now I am plugged in with ethernet cable.
Downloaded Avast! and Adaware. The other day, caught 2 spywares and 1 virus.
It has also unexpectedly quit applications, but no big deal I guess.
I no longer use my hard drive because I am always re-installing XP hoping maybe the various problems will be solved. No luck.
The Apple OS is Unix-based, so usually very robust.

[Matakoo]

Windows: Right click -> new folder (wait a sec for the folder to show up) -> name the folder.

The same way as you do it in Linux then. Except for files and directories outside of your homefolder - and that's for a very good reason. Things in /, /bin/etc and so on are SYSTEM FILES. If you don't know what you're doing when mucking around there, you can easily destroy the entire system. Is it inconvenient at times? Depends on what you do or want to do, but personally I prefer a small inconvenience to accidentally nuking my system.

Not only is that easier, but it's user intuitive. The common tasks are available from a right click and many other ways to do the same task. Linux you have to figure out that you need to raise permisions and then what the syntax for the makedir command is.

So you don't have to figure that out in Windows if you get a "Access denied"? News to me...and you change the permissions in pretty much the same way too. Using a GUI. Or a commandline if you wish. Cacls using Windows. With the following syntax...

cacls FileName [/t] [/e] [/c] [/g User:permission] [/r User [...]] [/p User:permission [...]] [/d User [...]]Real easy and intuiative, isn't it?

Btw, if the command prompt is for geeks then I guess Microsoft consider the users who run into trouble geeks. A lot of their solutions to problems involve using cmd.exe and the registry editor. Use their knowledgebase and you see what I mean. If you run into trouble, Windows is no longer easy to use. Neither is Linux. Both are fairly easy to use for day-to-day tasks, Linux being easier on some of those tasks while Windows being easier for others.

Yes, this is harder for the new person and even the occasional user. End of story. Unless you're some freak evolution with innate unix skillz hardwired into your brain, it's not immediately as intuitive as windows. Sorry. Do not argue this.

I'm gonna do it anyway...Windows is designed to have the user save his/her documents in "My Documents" (just documents on Vista). With everything installed, no user need to touch files outside of that folder. c:\windows (equivalent to /) and c:\program files (/bin) are locations you don't need to touch. And Microsoft thinks you shouldn't. That's why a default XP/Vista install do not show you what's in those folders unless you explicitly turns on "Show all files" (and even if you do, there are protection flags on the files). For the same reason Linux protects files under / - to prevent the user from causing damage to the OS. Do something you shouldn't in c:\windows and you will have to reinstall or repair. As you would if you destroy something in the wrong directory on a Linux system.

Sure, you can alter what's in c:\windows if you really want to. But you have to take some extra steps in order to do so. Just as you need in Linux if you want to write a file to /bin. Which means that for everyday use they're as intuitive and easy to use.

If you're just an ordinary user that is not a geek/tech savvy, stay within your home directory regardless of OS. For your own sake. Otherwise, you will sooner or later break something that you do not know how to fix. A user who doesn't know how Linux works SHOULD NOT touch files or make directories under /. A Windows user who doesn't know how Windows work SHOULD NOT touch files under c:\windows.

MS has spent millions and millions of dollars doing user interface design research.

I guess that explains why the default look on XP looks like something that got an F in graphic design then...;)

Linux is a great concept, but unfortunately it was based off of Unix. Unix is just an outdated anti-intuitive interface. Period. I have to say in the end, MS had the right long term choice to completely scrap DOS (when they choose 95 not to sit on top of DOS but to be it's own complete OS). The dir structure, command syntaxes need to be tossed and redone in a way that makes it easier and more intuitive.

That is: it is fortunate that it is *IX based. It has a proven track-record of stability and security. Windows hasn't, although they are improving in that regard. XP is excellent in stability, slightly less so in security. It remains to be seen how secure Vista is. So far, it is a step-back in stability though.

If you want to override the built-in security or repair things or "geek around", Linux isn't as userfriendly as it could be. Neither is windows. If you just want to use the computer without having to bother (much) with maintenance, they're about even.

Oh, and DOS wasn't scrapped with Win95. And not in Win98 either. It just wasn't as obvious that DOS was in the background and its role was significantly decreased, but it was there. On the consumer oriented OS:es, it wasn't scrapped until Win2000. NT 3.51 or NT4 didn't have any remnants of DOS, but they were not consumer based OS:es either.

I mean for god's sake, how many BIN directories do you need? bin, sbin, /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, /usr/bin/laden

For god's sake, how many system folders do you need in Windows? There's a reason for them, but why would an end user need to know? Or even see them? The installation software take care of putting things where they belong.

[darksong]

I've been Using Vista for a month now, on my Old pc and resently on my new PC, which i recived a week ago. It has never crashed doing anything from word processing, surfing the internet to playing games and watching DVD's.

I think vista is much more stable than XP or any windows before it - and unlike ubuntu - it installed first time without a hitch.

I personally think Vista is the best thing out there at the moment.

[Dennis123]

I can agree with Vista being the best WindowsOS on for me, but I also have to say, that it is like tashmooclam said: The results always vary. I've heard of people having problems deleting files, strage error messages and so on. All those bad results(or at least a large subset of those) regarding to vista come from PCs where vista doesn't work as it is expected to do. I've tried to install my Vista x64 on another 64-Bit PC and what happend is, that the installation just didn't work. So I had to stick with XP on that computer

So the end of the story is that:
if vista works on your PC, that's what you wanna see,
if it's not doing right, your thoughts of windows aren't any longer bright.

[Depressed Man]

Windows faces the same problem as Linux. (Probably OSX too but I don't play with that much since I'm not fond of it).

When it comes to a variety of software, hardware, and users. It's bound to work better for some and worse for others.

As Matakoo pointed out in his post. Many things in Linux and Windows are really the same. There are directories would rather not have you access, there are similar ways to create folders. The only difference is what you grew up with is how your use to seeing things.

For example, when I want to kill a program in Linux (say it's acting up) I still press ctrl+alt+delete expecting it to do something. Or when I want to use the cmd in Windows, when I try a common command used often in BASH it's like "WTF" why isn't this working?

[cmat]

I used Windows for a really long time when I was in university on my laptop and it never gave me problems and had occasional lockups. Now I use Linux on my laptop, they both do what I need them to do just that Ubuntu had more tools that I needed. Not to mention that my computer department strongly advocated Linux and I had all the free support I needed. MacOS X was just a fad, people kept parading around how great it was and thought they were hip. My Ubuntu laptop not to mention even my XP PC blew them out of the water and left them head scratching seeing what it can do. In the school paper there was an article about VMs on MacOS X and how it's so awesome how you can run Windows on it. Then it went on about how now you can just buy macs because they are so much better *roll eyes*. Just goes to show that in the end, Windows is something people can't go without. This is the point a drool generation and Linux has to catch up. If Vista was more like XP in certain respects (no DRM, that unprofessional Aero, and WGA [the trouble that's given me when I reinstalled XP]) I would be using it for sure.

[Depressed Man]

Anyone, I have a question (that can probably be solved). How would I set it so if press ctrl+alt+delete it pops up the system manager?

And regarding my previous post, after reading it. I realized OSX doesn't suffer from the same problems. Mainly because you can't install it on any system (well legally) without the hardware Apple chooses lol. So of course it would work better most times.

[maldojr88]

i really understand what the kid is saying
you have to be a little interested in computers ot be able to use linux

however...Linux is a smoother OS than windows....
but that is why windows in number one in costomers::::: Because it is easy to use
and thats a big deal

however taking a little time in learning Linux will get you abetter grasp as to what it is that you are doing
and although to learn it is a little steeper...you will get much more out of it...
trust me I was frustrated a few months ago as well...and im not a computer geek
and now

i Love linux

so just hang on buddy...
you love it after you get used to it

[M$LOL]

Linux is a great concept, but unfortunately it was based off of Unix. Unix is just an outdated anti-intuitive interface.

Hahaha, funny. Unix is about power and stability, not being easy to use for some Windows n00b.

I mean for god's sake, how many BIN directories do you need? bin, sbin, /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, /usr/bin/laden
WTH is your problem with bin directories? If you like, you can delete them all, then you might realize why they're there. And compare that to Windows, ever looked at all the crap in system32?

[kamaboko]

Hahaha, funny. Unix is about power and stability, not being easy to use for some Windows n00b.

So the point of computers then is that they're supposed to be difficult to operate, right? I'm glad that line of thinking doesn't apply to cars, washing machines, phones, and the several thousand electronic related devices/machines people use on a daily basis.

[M$LOL]

No, but just because some people don't find Unix intuitive doesn't mean it's a bad OS.

[Matakoo]

I think vista is much more stable than XP or any windows before it - and unlike ubuntu - it installed first time without a hitch.

That would depend on your hardware...Vista certainly didn't install without a hitch on the, what is it again, 5 or 6 computers I've installed it on. The problems ranged from mere inconveniences (not finding the soundcard at install, but fixed by windows update), through stability issues (a network card that kept on dropping the connection) up to show-stoppers (a ATA-interface that wasn't detected so the install program thought I had no HD attached, solved by attaching the disk to another interface). The same, naturally, applies to Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenBSD or whatever as well. The hardware varies too much for anyone to be able to say "Vista is always easer to install without a hitch" or "Ubuntu is always easier to install without a hitch". And that's only taking hardware on a piece-by-piece basis into consideration. A machine can be perfectly stable with either component Y or component X installed. Both at the same time can lead to problems if you're unlucky.

No, the only OS where you can mostly rely on the drivers working as intended at all times is Mac OS X, and that's because the hardware and the OS is sold as a bundle.

In all other OS:es, it will always be a hit-and-miss affair.

[Matakoo]

So the point of computers then is that they're supposed to be difficult to operate, right? I'm glad that line of thinking doesn't apply to cars, washing machines, phones, and the several thousand electronic related devices/machines people use on a daily basis.

No, it means that one shouldn't think that one set of skills can be utilized somewhere else. Being able to operate a washing machine is not the same skills you need to operate a car, for instance. Okay, dumb comparison...

Using the Linux desktop (KDE, Gnome, or whatever) and standard programs like a word processor, a paint program, and so on...well, those skills are to all intents and purposes the same no matter the OS. Core functions in the OS is a different matter though.

The installation procedure can be different, the security architecture certainly is, the standard location of specific files are different, the directory structure is different. But different is not necessarily better or worse. It's just something that you're not used to, and you need to change the way you think about certain aspects. That comes with the territory, and it's a big mistake to think that because you're a power user in one OS, you will get a new OS in no time.

In my experience, it is the opposite. The less you know of say Windows the less you have to unlearn in order to master Linux (in the areas where they differ only, naturally) or the other way around. A windows expert WILL be a n00b in Linux for a while. There is just no way around that, and it is best to be humble, accept that there are differences, and have a willingness to learn.

This is no concern for those who are content to just turn on the computer and write their e-mails, listen to their music, write their documents, or whatever they do. It is only a concern for those who want to understand what makes the OS tick. And that can not be stated enough times. It is all to common to see things like "Well, if I as a programmer/system administrator/MCSE can't understand this or get it to work, how on earth is a newbie supposed to do it?" Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

[Depressed Man]

The easiest way to think about it (like I was told by others) and I use this advice myself. Don't think like Windows, cause Linux isn't Windows. Likewise Windows isn't Linux.

Or for a real world example. You wouldn't go from America to some country in Europe, and expect to do everything the same way would you? The same goes vice versa.

[sunshine12]

That's natural response from someone who is using windows since he knows computer.. But I am sure you are getting used to it.

Root/Administration privilege is for good, and I think thats why GNU/Linux is safe.. otherwise it will be windows..

If you want everything like windows then you will end up with windows not Linux..

You have to spend some time to get used to the newer OS. I have wasted hell lot of time to learn windows when I started.. using Ubuntu since last 6 weeks, and my reactinon is this is Great OS.

Driver and compatibility has to do with the hardware manufacturer. Compatible driver for every OS should be provided by them.

Don't want to learn anything new, then buy Vista.

[Depressed Man]

Haha that's not the case sometimes either. I'm use to running as an admin in XP (stupid some people may say, but I'm use to it plus I can take care of my computer). When I ran into the UAC in Vista and the changes Windows made it took me forever to adjust. I even had to bring back the XP Admin account (Vista hides it..it's still there and disabled. All you have to do is enable it and restore it to user account status and then it acts like an XP admin account).

No UAC, nothing :).

[Patrick-Ruff]

UAC is ridiculous. for the 4 hours that I spent using vista that was the first thing I turned off.

Mac OS X seems to be the only OS I can actually stand anymore. probably because it's the most visually appealing to me and it can do everything I want it to do.

those who bring up the mac books, I can only agree to an extent . . . the first mac book pro's were horrible. overheating like crazy, freezing, bla bla bla. that was on the hardware end more than the software end. plus they were like the first computers to do intel anyways.

then again, Apple has been making so many huge transitions lately it's hard to get a computer that has been the same for over a year. I suppose that's the future of technology, constant rapid change.

I'm mostly speaking in favor of Mac OS X because I grew up with several different influences and I found Mac OS X the most appealing in my later computer usage years. when I was growing up it was either Mac or Windows . . . and Linux was this 'hackers' operating system that I was too scared to try ;).

[lisati]

Haha that's not the case sometimes either. I'm use to running as an admin in XP (stupid some people may say, but I'm use to it plus I can take care of my computer). When I ran into the UAC in Vista and the changes Windows made it took me forever to adjust. I even had to bring back the XP Admin account (Vista hides it..it's still there and disabled. All you have to do is enable it and restore it to user account status and then it acts like an XP admin account).

No UAC, nothing :).

Occasionally I've even had XP Home come up with an extra "Administrator" account that I didn't even know about until the first time I used one of its recovery modes.

[yersi]

What I don't get are the Windows apologists complaining about the precious time required to learn linux. I mean, unless you are a super-important CEO (like Michael Dell hehe), your time every day is spent doing things that don't directly contribute to your material wealth or career. In the OP's case, he's playing Guild Wars.

Since Linux is based around a community fueled by enthusiasm and a desire to convert people, the converts feel that the burden of performance and usability is on those who support it, rather than themselves. In my experience the persons who try their hardest to be liked are often the ones who are the least liked. It's the same way with operating systems. With Windows they'd gladly spend days on a support line to fix a problem, with Ubuntu they are violently opposed to spending an hour reading a messageboard and writing some commands. It does not make sense at all and it doesn't have to. It's the way the world works.

[darksong]

That would depend on your hardware...Vista certainly didn't install without a hitch on the, what is it again, 5 or 6 computers I've installed it on. The problems ranged from mere inconveniences (not finding the soundcard at install, but fixed by windows update), through stability issues (a network card that kept on dropping the connection) up to show-stoppers (a ATA-interface that wasn't detected so the install program thought I had no HD attached, solved by attaching the disk to another interface). The same, naturally, applies to Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenBSD or whatever as well. The hardware varies too much for anyone to be able to say "Vista is always easer to install without a hitch" or "Ubuntu is always easier to install without a hitch". And that's only taking hardware on a piece-by-piece basis into consideration. A machine can be perfectly stable with either component Y or component X installed. Both at the same time can lead to problems if you're unlucky.

No, the only OS where you can mostly rely on the drivers working as intended at all times is Mac OS X, and that's because the hardware and the OS is sold as a bundle.

In all other OS:es, it will always be a hit-and-miss affair.

True, and a good point, but the longer vista is in the linelight - the more things will be developed for it. In about 2 years time Vista will almost be in the same position as windows XP is now, in pratically everyones house. As this happens the more supported it will become.