PDA

View Full Version : Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

arist0tle
July 27th, 2007, 10:25 PM
I think everyone is dying to jump on this one so I'll stay out of it.

compennex
July 28th, 2007, 12:00 AM
i have Windows XP on my desktop and the only thing i use it for now-a-days is to store my large files and my extensive music collection. but for everything else i use my laptop which has ubuntu 7.04. Somethings may take a while to figure out but once u get the hang of things (not saying i'm there yet) it makes it hard to go back to *cough* Windows

greyspot
July 28th, 2007, 07:58 AM
I dual boot XP and 7.04. I really do like Ubuntu because it's faster (a lot faster), and completely customizable. It's about as stable (XP almost never crashes) but the way the sound works on Linux is annoying, how only one program can use sound at once without the whole thing messing up.

I've got my XP on my 80GB HD and Ubuntu on my 10GB I tore out of an old PC. I tried getting certain things to work using Wine but since I can't I have to keep a dual boot.

Just a question, I know of some distros that work perfectly with Windows equipment and software (pretty much a windows clone, can't remember the name). I was wondering why we can't keep the same old Ubuntu and throw that in there just for compatibility. If wine worked as good as I hear the virtual environment works on a Mac, I'd put windows on my smaller HD and probably never use it. That'd be a lot more convenient than dual booting to use different things.

Frak
July 28th, 2007, 08:11 AM
I dual boot XP and 7.04. I really do like Ubuntu because it's faster (a lot faster), and completely customizable. It's about as stable (XP almost never crashes) but the way the sound works on Linux is annoying, how only one program can use sound at once without the whole thing messing up.

I've got my XP on my 80GB HD and Ubuntu on my 10GB I tore out of an old PC. I tried getting certain things to work using Wine but since I can't I have to keep a dual boot.

Just a question, I know of some distros that work perfectly with Windows equipment and software (pretty much a windows clone, can't remember the name). I was wondering why we can't keep the same old Ubuntu and throw that in there just for compatibility. If wine worked as good as I hear the virtual environment works on a Mac, I'd put windows on my smaller HD and probably never use it. That'd be a lot more convenient than dual booting to use different things.
Because 97% of the time, those hardware compatability (drivers) are Proprietary, and for that reason they are not included, Freespire (http://www.freespire.org/) may be to your liking though. They are now using an Ubuntu core.

Chymera
July 28th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Well its pretty straightforward:
Gaming on linux sucks, compared to ps cs3 gimp sucks, compared to 3dmax blender sucks, alsa.... SUCKS, burning dvds sucks, having to spend about 2 weeks to get everything working nicely sucks, file transfer with pidgin/gaim sucks, lack of up-to-date documentation sucks, having to worry about dependencies whenever you install smth thats not under synaptic sucks, not having any competent program comparable to adobe flash or adobe premiere sucks, and the list could go on

Linux has some minor advantages like customisability (although i doubt it would take as much as 2 weeks to get used to that vista look), and better security (but again, if youre careful you dont get as much spyware&co as everyone else seems to say they get), it works a little bit faster, and its less likely to crash (but you shouldnt buy in to that linux-never-crashes sh**), however they could never make up for its major disadvantages.
But you cant beat one thing: its free

And theres always the hope that maybe one day it will work properly...

Frak
July 28th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Gaming is OK, just look for 'em, sudo apt-get -f install is your best friend for dependencies, and took you two weeks, took me 5 minutes viewing a thread.

Chymera
July 28th, 2007, 06:22 PM
If i would have had only 2 speakers, and would have used my comp only for listening to music and playing some movies, and editing text and browsing the internet it would have taken me about 30 secs.

However i had to try getting codecs for all those formats linux dosnt natively support (30 min) getting some proper music and video players, rythmbox and totem are even worse than Windows media player ( ~1 hour).
Getting it to boot from my usb drive took another 3 days, with one reinstall (no dont tell me theres a guide for that, the guides fur usb install on this forum are b*llcra*). On the way to getting my 5.1 to work properly (following another very intelligent guide from this forum) i managed to crash the computer, yet another reinstall, took me another 3 days of search and work to almost crah the system again, and another 2 days to finally give up (it still dosnt work). Took me another 2 days to try running warcraft 3 tft (yes, a 4-year-old game),ofcourse the guys at WinE will tell you it works, guess what, IT DOSNT! Another day to try running cs3 or at least cs2, even the guys at WinE will tell you they couldnt get that wroking.... So yes, youre right, now that i think of it it only took me about 3 days to get linux going nicely, the rest of the 2 weeks were spent realizing that some things i would naturally expect from an os dont exist under linux.

Im not saying that linux distros, ubuntu especially, are crappy, or else i wouldnt be here in the first place, im just saying that you shouldnt ar**-kiss linux just because windows sucks. I do agree that linux has an edge on windows, but a very small one.

gimmy_bond
July 28th, 2007, 08:22 PM
[QUOTE=Slicedbread;304723

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?[/QUOTE]

1. Can you spell hard earned $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Pay (really a voluntary donation) a fraction for Linux Application, which you pay to M$. (Go ahead and pay MS $350 for XP Pro which cost them around $15 to reproduce - including cost to develop it).

Have you tried OpenOffice 2.0?. It is fully compatible to MS Office.

2. And how about freedom of choice.

3. security from viruses.

Djembe
July 28th, 2007, 09:02 PM
I first installed Ubuntu on a whim because I knew a few people who were raving about Linux, and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Now that I've used it for a while, here are my observations comparing Ubuntu with Windows XP:

In my (admittedly limited) experience,

Ubuntu loads faster. By saying that, I mean that from power on to usability, Ubuntu is much faster, even though XP boots faster (from GRUB menu to login window). From login to usability is around 8 seconds in Ubuntu- it's over a minute in XP. And while that is dependant on the programs I've got running at startup, I run similar startup programs in both operating systems (non-standard login screen, GUI, firewall, instant messenger, CPU monitor, etc).

Ubuntu has better graphic user interface options. Beryl/Compiz Fusion is a fantastic GUI, and allows much more customizability than anything I've seen for Windows. This allows my Linux desktop to be more useful (additional features) as well as just flat-out look cooler than my Windows desktop.

It's easier to locate as well as find support for programs in Ubuntu. The aptitude/synaptic package listings are impressive and you can also find programs via the application list. All these are inside the operating system and very convenient. Also, these forums provide an easy way to find support for almost any problem I could have, and they're much more user-friendly (in my opinion) than Microsoft support.

Ubuntu also takes up considerably less system resources than does XP and of course there's the price differential, both in terms of the purchase of the operating system itself and also in software used by said operating system.

While all these things are good, there are still a couple things that make me unwilling to give up XP:

The manufacturer of my computer provides Windows software that specifically addresses the hardware contained within. While certain elements of the software have been decyphered and used in Ubuntu, there is still a gap, and my notebook generally runs cooler and quieter under Windows, as well as getting more battery life.

Also, playing the games I have is either much easier or only possible on Windows. The same goes for some software that I've only found Windows versions of and either do not run or do not run optimally via emulators such as wine.

ThreeBeans
July 28th, 2007, 09:41 PM
I have Windows XP and use Ubuntu because Windows XP isn't a server.

As a desktop, you get the full version with Ubuntu as opposed to crippleware (XP Home) with Windows. I suppose it's even more extreme with Vista, but I haven't bothered to count how many different versions are available.

itruck4fun
July 29th, 2007, 03:56 AM
I have a machine that runs XP and this completely free version of ubuntu that runs all the same style apps, saves files in windows format that I can access over the network if I do want to access them in windows,(did I say for free yet) is more secure, faster (using a dinosaur (well almost in computer terms) PII), has not been too bad to figure out so far.
I am not a gamer so I do not miss a lot of the functionality of windows. Windows is a good operating system for a less experienced end user. It is difficult to compare apples to oranges and that's what these two systems are to each other.
My ubuntu system has been running for 30 days without a reboot or a crash and I really am not all that experienced when it comes to setting up a linux system. If you like windows stick with windows... if you want to learn to really use a computer learn linux (whichever kernel it may be)
Did I mention that everything I have for windows ($$$$$$) I have in linux for free...

not bashing windows though it is still top of the game (in western society)

Sir_Penguin
July 29th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Okay. Well... haven't read the entire thread (for faily obvious reasons, 1512 posts!) but I dual boot XP and Feisty. I use XP for:
Dawn of War and Counter-Strike Source. WAMP. I only recently reinstalled Ubuntu and haven't transferred my code over yet but I have got a LAMP server running. I use Feisty for:
Word Processing
Chat
Compiz Fusion (pretty!)
Coding (Python and *very* soon PHP and later what other languages I choose to learn)
And pretty much everything else.

Why I prefer Feisty:
Faster. More Stable. Compiz Fusion. Free. Open Source. I *hate* Microsoft. I find the terminal fun... hate DOS, can't use it lol. Probably some more but can't think of 'em right now.

whizbaby
July 29th, 2007, 05:00 PM
So yes, youre right, now that i think of it it only took me about 3 days to get linux going nicely, the rest of the 2 weeks were spent realizing that some things i would naturally expect from an os dont exist under linux.
Not bad when you think that I had Windoze more than 6 years NEVER getting it to work right (not to speak of uncountable reinstallations), even not with the help of certified microsoft engineers... (Im deep in sounds and recording. No, really)
Of course it takes a bit of time learning how to do stuff, but ask yourself how long did it take you to learn howto do things (not the all-day-crap) in windoze?
If theres no proper howto for usbdrives then POST one. Then you might have the right to complain about missing/old documentation...

Go_Bucks
July 29th, 2007, 07:07 PM
I've never liked using Microsoft products because of their business practices, and I got tired of having to reinstall Windows all of the time because the computer just becomes painfully slow (even after running cleanup programs). Recently, I stumbled across OpenOffice.org and decided to try it out on a Windows system. That got me thinking about Linux. I had heard about Ubuntu when Dell starting distributing it, so I gave it a try on my desktop. I love it and will never go back.

I still maintain Windows on my laptop because I need it for work (ArcGIS, as well as an Access database). I am playing with learning to do the same things (gis and database) on Ubuntu using Grass and PostGIS, but I am a long way from proficient. I plan to dump Windows completely at some point when I begin working in environmental consulting on my own.

vicky1984
July 29th, 2007, 08:06 PM
I use it because there is no way I can do the stuff I want to do in Windows. I use it mainly for work, and the programs I need just aren't available for Windows, they're all on linux (I'm guessing maybe becuase it's free, and because of the science's love of gawk)
Saying that, I wouldn't have chosen to use it before, but now I have it I get realy frustrated with XP! Ubuntu is far easier to use once you're used to it.

lg5productions
July 29th, 2007, 09:14 PM
I dual boot for the ability to learn more about computing. Windows is widely accepted yes, but Unbuntu is/has a wide market. It's versatility, no cost, and flexibility, make it a boon for folks whom cannot purchase the latest Windows copy. I personally need to save money, and I can usually find a comparable program for my needs in Unbuntu.
But on the learing curve, almost everything deals with Windows. I work for a non profit and they stick to Windows like glue. So do most of my clients. So having Windows on my computer always keeps me "in the loop" so to speak. Yes I do belive a lot of money and time would be saved with just one installed. If Unbuntu could gain the acceptance market share of Windows, then I'm sure you could soon buy an Unbuntu Computer for next to nothing. What a wonderful idea. :)

rf186
July 29th, 2007, 09:24 PM
I started using Ubuntu shortly after edgy was released, because I managed to get my hands on a wiped P4 CPU at a very low cost ($40 US) anyway this computer was for my 6 year old daughter and I was hearing some really good things about Ubuntu at the time. So anyway, I loaded Ubuntu on this computer and started playing with it, I wasn't prepared for the learning curve, which seemed like a mountain at first, but turned out being just a few small bumps. Anyway, after setting up her computer, I decided that I really liked this whole open source idea, so I replaced Windows NT on another PC & dual booted my main Windows XP computer with Ubuntu and everything was going good for a while, then my main hard drive on my Windows XP computer went kapooey taking XP right along with it. I went to the store to pickup another copy of XP at $100+ & thought what the HELL Am I Doing? Anyway at that point, I just started using Ubuntu 100%, I had already downloaded all the similar programs in Ubuntu that I had been using in Windows, I had already given most of them a try, and some (open source) programs I found were actually better than their Windows counterparts (that I actually had to pay money for) so anyway after XP had died I just continued on using Ubuntu instead of Windows and other than a few instances of bad judgement, I've never looked back.
I've been Windows free for over 3 months now! Scratch that, that's not true I still use Windows XP at work (I have no control over that) but the great thing is all the work I do at home is compatible with their Windows counterparts so I'm still on top of things when I go to work.

Also let me state that my knowledge about computers is only slightly above average, and I mean slightly :-)
I must confess though, I tried using some Linux bases OS's a few years back, and I found that I really needed a Gui of some sort, the command line thing straight from the bat I couldn't get used to. Now I find that using the command line on a rare occasion (with the help of the Ubuntu forums) doesn't bother me at all.

vexorian
July 29th, 2007, 09:28 PM
I can make gnome a confortable place to work in, I can't in windows, at least not without doing things that are against the EULA like changing uxtheme.dll for example.

And everyday I don't use windows is one less day of imprisoment by MS monopoly I have decided to stop being a +1 in their marketshare until they stop their current anticustomer polcies, and I am talking about WGA and DRM.

smilingfrog
July 29th, 2007, 09:45 PM
I have to say I really like Ubuntu, but I think the learning curve is intimidating.

I run a computer and a laptop side by side for programing and web surfing. My laptop came pre-installed with XP and I have been running win2K professional on the other computer for six years. My laptop crapped out a bit three months ago and needed a new motherboard. I thought I would backup the hard drive before it went away, but guess what? No back up utility on XP home. That's really bad.

So I started dual booting with Ubuntu, because I don't want vista, and I needed to change the OS on the laptop.

I am pretty computer literate, but in order to get Ubuntu to recognise my graphics tablet, my USB mouse and play streaming audio has taken me months to figure out. It seems obvious in retrospect how to do it, but my wife has a Mac, and just laughs at me. Rightfully so.

The bottom line for me: customizable. Stable. Fast booting. Endless software. Great support community. No cost. I like it.

G

quattro4
July 29th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Because it's:
safer
easier to use
not as buggy
and not made by microsoft
oh yeah and it's free

vexorian
July 30th, 2007, 03:44 AM
I am pretty computer literate, but in order to get Ubuntu to recognise my graphics tablet, my USB mouse and play streaming audio has taken me months to figure out. It seems obvious in retrospect how to do it, but my wife has a Mac, and just laughs at me. Rightfully so.But try setting up an OS/X in another computer, now that's hard to deal with, I guess it is very easy to do the things when you are lazy and arrogant as apple to make sure your software only works on your own hardware...

Jhongy
July 30th, 2007, 08:29 AM
Because it is better.

(He says from his laptop as he listens to non-skipping Banshee radio, surfs the net -- including dodgy sites -- safely, flips the cube to fiddle with a PHP script, and checks his e-mail in his desktop's thunderbird over SSH, while his wife uses the same computer in a separat session....)

OneSeventeen
July 30th, 2007, 02:52 PM
For me, I don't like the business practices of just about any business, including Canonical. Some of the early releases of Ubuntu contained stuff I don't want on my machine.

The big reason I use Linux is because after a few years it started making sense to me as a user. (not as a developer/admin, I'm still clueless in a lot of areas)

Simple things like opening a folder that is connected via SSH to a server across the country (like OSX) and actually having Write access (unlike OSX)! Those little details blow me over. apt is pretty enticing as well, but I've had upgrades break my system (anyone remember that ATI driver that forced many to re-install?).

I guess the main reason is because I want Linux to be cool. It doesn't matter if it is, I'm just as guilty as OSX/Win fanboys and girls. I have used amaroK, iTunes, GIMP, photoshop, blender, 3dstudio max, etc, etc. And while I prefer blender and inkscape, the GIMP comes nowhere close to photoshop and I don't have a preference between amaroK and iTunes. (Of course I've never plugged my iPod into amaroK either)

Compiz-fusion, however blows Vista Aero Glass out of the water, and runs on my 2 year old laptop with less than 512MB of RAM!

I think the best summary would be:

I use Linux because I want to.

dreaswar
July 30th, 2007, 03:11 PM
hi,

i have been using Linux ( Ubuntu ) for the past one week. This my first time using linux. I knew nothing about it. i had breifly seen my friend typing command after command on a red hat about 10 years earlier.... so i thought Linux was not for me. Casually heard about this wonderthing called Knoppix which could run out of a CD and i was interested. i was using my laptop a lot and used to leave it on through the day and sometime most of night for my work and downloading stuff. so it happened tha ti had downloaded Knoppix and burnt it.

I was happy ( ... hm.. sort of ... i didnt have any or know any alternative you know..) with Windows. A day or two after i had knoppix my system crashed inexplicably. Blue screen and all that. First time i faced the BSOD i had heard so much about. Then i tried Knopix and saved all my data and guess what .... i reinstalled Windows.My first time installing an OS.It was so good to be back home again... !!!

then i took linux more seriously and downloaded ubuntu which many cliamed to be very userfriendly.

initially ran the live cd ... gave me some errors on start up and my wireless wouldnt work. i booted back into windows to search the forums and all i got was mostly commandline advise, apt get, ndiswrapper...... i couldnt make anything out.. so i concluded that linux was pretty usless in my machine and abandoned it.

Then i came across Wubi.... which could instal ubuntu without partitioning... formatting and all that. Bear in mind that i am a novice when it comes to system things as i had never installed an OS before.. so parttioning and all that made me very nervous. This was god send...i could try it out.

i installed..Ubuntu 7.04. Connected through the wired ethernet as my network card s not recognised and did the ndiswrapper thing... it clicked... one week on .. on the net.... no probs...

now i can do anything i did with my Windows...on ubuntu. (Ofcourse i am not a big gamer. so no complaints on that front)

i leave it on through the day and ninght and it is still very responsive in mornings... no restart required... feels more stable.

had couple of episodes of hanging which required reboot... it involved an error in the torrent program - bittornado. i dont use it anymore. I got wine and installed Utorrent. It works like dream.

I tried to hidernate not knowing that wubi dosent support it and had to do a 'hard' shutdown. It corrupted one of my partitions and i had to do the CHKDSK in windows.

Despite the hiccups,i am learning new tricks daily ... but still cant get how to do the " tar.gz" thing.i felt it was way too complicated way to install a new program. there should be an easier way ... (not all programs are available as packages for ready install....)

on the whole....

1) i cant run my wife's things like photoshop , illustrator, corel draw etc....have to go back to windows.

2) cant get streaming video properly with totem inspite of intalling gstream plugins and restricted lib. .. totem wont seek when i move the bar ahead and gets stuck once i do that .. video quality is also very poor and choppy than in native app like WMP, Quicktime.

3) too much trouble to install a program .. like in .tar files. Too much home work required before you find out info about is. The synaptic is allright- it is quick and easy. ( yes ..yes.. i know comandlne is powerful and all that but a newbie may think the sword will cut bothways!!)

4) many of the advices in the forum pages are command line based which a beginner(coming for Windows) is afraid to try out .. and may not even understand.

5)i couldnt install opera for linux inspite of trying number of times. Opera is my favorite browser. I have been attempting installation for past 3 days now.-- way too much trouble for a browser that i could install in a few clicks on Windows.

6)popular excuse given is that the hardware manufacturers are not honest ... but what ever the reason the problems do remain and it sort of repels a newcomer form taking up and trying linux. For eg. i worked on my wireless card issue for about 2days to do the homework before i could find out a way to work it out. In Windows all i had to do was insert the manufacturer CD. Now, i understand your point about being free and fredom and all that.. but for an average computer user.. its still just too much trouble.

I feel as long as that barrier remains any arguments against windows being unstable and vulnerable wouldnt do a thing to woo a newcomer to shift to linux. He would do what i had done one week back - Reinstall Windows after it lets him/her down.

That said i will still continue to use ubuntu.. because i liked the spirit, the stability and i want to encourage it...in the hope that some day .. it too will be completely plug and play

i think the post was a little too long .. but just thought i would share this with you...

thanks.

vexorian
July 30th, 2007, 04:49 PM
3) too much trouble to install a program .. like in .tar files. Too much home work required before you find out info about is. The synaptic is allright- it is quick and easy. ( yes ..yes.. i know comandlne is powerful and all that but a newbie may think the sword will cut bothways!!)

Tar.gz files are not for you, aka you shouldn't use them, if all things are correct you would only need the tar.gz if you want a bleeding edge version (== untested) or you are a developer, users should stick to repos and .deb packages.


5)i couldnt install opera for linux inspite of trying number of times. Opera is my favorite browser. I have been attempting installation for past 3 days now.-- way too much trouble for a browser that i could install in a few clicks on Windows.You shouldn't stick to it, it blows, but you can always try getting automatix if you have an urge to install crazy proprietary things that got OS alternatives.


I feel as long as that barrier remains any arguments against windows being unstable and vulnerable wouldnt do a thing to woo a newcomer to shift to linux. He would do what i had done one week back - Reinstall Windows after it lets him/her down.There are way too much users that once were newcomers, I don't really think everybody gets scared away because of not being able to use photoshop.

...
The Gimp is good, really, unless you are some kind of artist monster that can't get used to it, but nevertheless photoshop CAN run on windows, but there is also a very good photoshop clone out there, but it costs $$$ (not like photoshop is unexpensive though)

You could ask adobe to stop being an inept company, they already make things for Linux but it would look like they do it just for their own convenience and not the customer's (enforcing their formats) , a market if not healthy if the maker of a product can force you to stick to a totally unrelated product from other company.

But anyways, if you got software dependencies, perhaps it is time to try crossover office?


6)popular excuse given is that the hardware manufacturers are not honest ... but what ever the reason the problems do remain and it sort of repels a newcomer form taking up and trying linux. For eg. i worked on my wireless card issue for about 2days to do the homework before i could find out a way to work it out. In Windows all i had to do was insert the manufacturer CD. Now, i understand your point about being free and fredom and all that.. but for an average computer user.. its still just too much trouble.

You manufacturer is not doing his homework, they should support the platforms you pick and not pick a platform for you, manufacturers could even get along and design a protocoll standard so ... every OS could just follow it and voila the thing works! Is it that hard? It isn't and it would save money for the manufacturers as well.


...
Installing tar.gz files
- Make sure there isn't a .deb or repository available.
- Extract it to some folder.
- Make sure to read any INSTALL or README file (it probably states requirements for libraries)
If you find a requirement, then go to synaptic and look for that requirement, get the -dev version (as long as the libraries used are mainstream it should work)
- Open the terminal, type cd /path/where/you/extracted
- In the terminal type: ./configure
- Then type: make
- Then type: sudo make install

If any step gives you errors, you may try googling for it or giving up.

diatribe
July 30th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Tar.gz files are not for you, aka you shouldn't use them, if all things are correct you would only need the tar.gz if you want a bleeding edge version (== untested) or you are a developer, users should stick to repos and .deb packages.

tar.gz is just a compressed file. if you can use winzip in windows just use file-roller or xarchiver, if you still cant figure it out go back to windows. and also on topic, windows sucks ;p

vexorian
July 30th, 2007, 05:02 PM
I meant "source distributions" when I said tar.gz

dreaswar
July 30th, 2007, 05:22 PM
yes yes ,,

i never diaagreed with the point that world would be a better place if everybody heard each others voice and accomodated the requests.

but ,,,,sadly the present situation is not so and that is a fact..

i am not saying we have to take it lying down for the rest of our lives ..

but we have to accomodate the present situation and accept it till such time as linux becomes plug and play completely.

We do have to live with Win XP for our daily needs.For some of us windows can be done away with right now and some may depend heavily ....but time may come when we will be free... when everybody has a their share of free beer.. Till then Dual Boot....

hey... but thanks for the tip on .tar files... will try it when i have sufficient "number of beans" to pull it off.

:)

avc302000
July 30th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Well, after almost an hour readings some of the posts, i felt that my opinion should be read...
I've been an Ubuntu "almost" user for 3 years now. I say almost because I've always had machines that dual boot Ubuntu. The dual boot was necessary because work PCs are windows... so you figure.
With 7.04, and the new graphical capabilities, things have changed a lot.
My opinion is that, in a general point of view Ubuntu should be compared to Macs and not Windows cause Windows...well let me just says that its worst than a pie of ****! (can i say ****?its windows ****...)
But on the other hand, I understand why so many windows users, even trying Ubuntu and seeing that it blows away Windows, are against changing from one to another... the reason is, in many linux applications to be installed, the lack of the bottom "NEXT".
From beginning, windows users learn that "Next" is the way to enlightenment, to wisdom...and windows sw manufacturers use and abuse of that!
Using linux and windows could be compared to playing some games... Mahjonng is Windows, cause all it matters is combine the stones, easy! Linux is like playing online Unreal, or other equal, making teams, defining a strategy to kill all. Its hard and it abuses sometimes of your patience...but it's regretful seeing things working at the end.
And this forum, with all your contributions, make the playing a lot easier and fun.
So I vote Ubuntu because I like to burn my brains out for a good reason... not only for reading newspapers.

CarVac
July 30th, 2007, 09:02 PM
@dreaswar:

If you want Opera (which I also use), as well as other closed-source software that's not on the ubuntu repositories, such as Skype, a very good tool is Automatix (http://getautomatix.com). It acts like the 'add or remove programs' tool, but has closed-source software. It even has a few scripts that configure keyboard shortcuts that open process monitor in GNOME with ctrl-alt-del, and has video plugins for browsers.

boxoff
July 30th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Why not trying another OS better than being locked into one thing also Ubuntu is a great OS that is much more stable than windows

Lolicon
July 31st, 2007, 06:37 AM
Ah the reason I want this OS on my computer is one simple thing: I have ext2 parititons that hate the fs-driver's unicode support.

Taum
July 31st, 2007, 08:14 AM
I still use XP (on one of my three computers) because I like some of the games. Oh, and some of the websites that my wife and I have to use require IE. Stupid IE...

ndefontenay
July 31st, 2007, 08:50 AM
My problem is as follow with windows:

License: I have probably bought something like 3 or 4 windows XP licenses while buying new PCs. If I buy a new computer (because the previous one is broken), 2 things could happen:

1) Best case, I got the serial number. I have to give a call to a call centre to get the new serial number. You know how long it is. Really not fun... In Mauritius it's even worst. We have to call someone in Africa, just a couple of thousands kilometre away and bare the cost of the call on top of that...

2) Worst case: I've lost the serial. Go get a new 120$ windows...

At the office, Using a CD with another PC bring us up to the case No1 stated above... They can't be switched easily.

With Linux, I can install it where I want and when I want. It supports multiple languages in just one CD while windows requires to get your hand on another windows CD... Wait that would be another 120$.

As a desktop, it's easy to install a new software from the huge repository available. I love being able to browse and search applications to install as if I'm doing a my shopping.

And a lot of small things like I can get new wallpapers from the wallpaper screen. It can support awesome 3D desktop.

I've found out most people don't want to switch simply because they are scared to put themselves in the unknown...

In Vietnam, my friend has bought a laptop with windows installed. It seems the sales person was not very honest. Suddenly windows released his genuine policy. Now, he can't listen to music with windows medial player and he got the nag popup on startup.

Even so, he don't want to change to Linux because "I don't know".
I wish I could help people like that better but with laptops wireless is a must and this person rely a lot on wireless. Yet, even with Linux FF it's still too much randomly working. That's my only downside.

As an experienced user, I actually buy my hardware knowing what will go on it. Doing some research before hand for support. Most normal users won't go through that.

I really wish I can help this poor lad.

kamaboko
July 31st, 2007, 01:45 PM
2) Worst case: I've lost the serial. Go get a new 120$ windows...



As I recall during my many visits to Thailand, MS products can be had for a dollar or two. Khaosan road or Patpong anyone?

dannyboy79
July 31st, 2007, 01:56 PM
As I recall during my many visits to Thailand, MS products can be had for a dollar or two. Khaosan road or Patpong anyone?

yeah the pirated ones that don't pass the windows genuine validation!

vexorian
July 31st, 2007, 02:02 PM
What's fun about MS is that WGA might fail if your OS is not pirated, but if it is pirated WGA will never fail, just saying this since my windows XP CD has been installed in many computers and I didn't hear of anybody suffering because of WGA, in fact I could even download IE7...

r_l
July 31st, 2007, 02:09 PM
I do very simple and basic things with my computer and Ubuntu loads and runs faster then XP. However, if you want to do something more complicated with Ubuntu, it often involves quite a bit of hacking and setting up (even for something I consider as kind of basic, such as a firewall). It is kind of frustrating. While Ubuntu itself largely works out of the box, many Ubuntu applications don't.

smoker
July 31st, 2007, 02:11 PM
yeah the pirated ones that don't pass the windows genuine validation!

i would expect a 'genuine' pirated copy for that price!:lolflag:

kamaboko
July 31st, 2007, 02:28 PM
yeah the pirated ones that don't pass the windows genuine validation!

Yes they do.

vexorian
July 31st, 2007, 02:31 PM
As I recall during my many visits to Thailand, MS products can be had for a dollar or two. Khaosan road or Patpong anyone?
I guess that's a great point, in order to use software you actually bought you got to actually buy another one that is pirated and commit illegal stuff , hey yay!

kamaboko
July 31st, 2007, 03:40 PM
I guess that's a great point, in order to use software you actually bought you got to actually buy another one that is pirated and commit illegal stuff , hey yay!

My point was that the typical consumer in Thailand will head on over to Patpong or Khaosan road and pick up an illegal copy. That is what I saw, as well as what some of my teacher friends over there tell me. So I'm a bit skeptical about the other guy really dropping $120 for a copy of Vista or XP.

johntkucz
July 31st, 2007, 05:28 PM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called
you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org


To be frank, if you sprinkle all the major incompatibilities (no sound, no wireless, key components not working) with "no viruses" (solved by Norton), no reinstallations, and more stability, that's about as logical as liking a birthday cake made out of **** because it has tasty sprinkles.

That said, I like ubuntu because of the file system. period. The linux, hierarchial system, everything from root, the terminal BASH shell, all of that stuff is what the first computers ran, the servers run, and the like and I like working with that environment. But aside from file system tinkering the fact that most of the features of your computer's hardware WILL NOT WORK on ubuntu seems like something very difficult -- impossible -- to overlook.

joe.turion64x2
July 31st, 2007, 05:44 PM
i would expect a 'genuine' pirated copy for that price!:lolflag:
Get Windows uE then, it has the proper tools to bypass WGA and even bundles with all usual windows stuff.

texas319
July 31st, 2007, 05:46 PM
With Vista being force fed its either Linux or Vista both have a learning curve for unseasoned users. I am IT admin and i know some people that love Windows 2000 Pro

joe.turion64x2
July 31st, 2007, 06:12 PM
With Vista being force fed its either Linux or Vista both have a learning curve for unseasoned users. I am IT admin and i know some people that love Windows 2000 Pro
I used to love it years ago.

gl0wst1ckn1nja
July 31st, 2007, 06:30 PM
i prefer linux because it runs apps a ton faster ... it also utilizes its resources and manages memory and cpu power a lot better ... its very efficient to also have 4+ workspaces ... now granted you cant get the great games on linux ... well i suppose you could with wine or other wrappers ... but a computer is so much more than a gaming console ... i would rather use the bash commands rather than ms-dos just because its more organized and for the most part bash will guess what you want to do anyway you dont have to hold its hand through everything. i will be building myself a nice gaming rig here soon and plan to run xp pro. but thats for games. everything else is ubuntu all the way. the one and only issue i have with feisty is its compatibility with my broadcom 4318 :mad: freakin POS. but i just ordered a DCMA-82 Atheros 6G: 802.11a/b/g High Power mPCI Card so that will take care of my final linux problem.

SOFTWARE IS LIKE SEX ... its better when its free

Frak
July 31st, 2007, 07:20 PM
I'm sorry, I have to say it. WGA is a failure. Anybody can easily just change their key within Windows with a Keygen, and boom, they have passed.
Microsoft stuff is just bad. But you can't fool linux :)

dannyboy79
July 31st, 2007, 08:37 PM
the real reason I still have windows xp is because I haven't learned how to do ALL that I need to do with Linux (Ubuntu) yet. I went to Ubuntu to begin with because a friend said it was an awesome Desktop OS which has every imaginable piece of software at your figertips for FREE!!!! I could never get my WinXP Pro and ATI AIW 9800Pro to work correctly with ATI's media software for viewing/recording livetv, I had sound cutting out issues etc etc, I had to always ensure that my spyware/malware/virus protection was up-to-date! When something goes amiss with a Windows Program or say I got some nasty spyware, I could never figure out what to do, and sometimes a reinstall of that program wouldn't work or using hijack this would take days to examine and clean out spyware/malware, so I'd have to save everything off and reinstall winbloz! Boy did that suck when it happened once every 6 months. Needless to say, I am sooo happy that my friend pointed me to Breezy.

vexorian
July 31st, 2007, 11:53 PM
Software is like sex... it is better when it is free and you also share it...

swoll1980
August 1st, 2007, 10:06 PM
How about Gimp,beyl,virtualbox(Iknow they have this for windows, but the vms' run slower on windows) I have the $180 vm workstation for xp and it doesn't work half as good as the free VirtualBox does on Linux

joe.turion64x2
August 1st, 2007, 11:01 PM
There is another reason why I use Linux even though I have Windows XP.

When I got my laptop it bundled with Windows XP, so I am a legit user. But there is a detail, almost everything I use in Windows is free software: GIMP, OpenOffice.org, Miktex, TeXnicCenter, Scilab (security software does not count: AVG and Zone Alarm, free), I like to avoid piracy when there are choices.

So, why bother using free software in a non-as-secure platform if I can freely use it in its 'native' and secure environment (Linux)? The only thing I could miss is AVG.

I do some gaming too: Battle for Wesnoth which is freely available in Linux (I used Caesar III in Windows but left it after some time: time consuming; I never could afford a more 'advanced' game).

Thanks.
Joe.

MWilliams13
August 2nd, 2007, 01:48 AM
Ummm, it's free.. this is my laptop that is running only ubuntu. I have 3 desktops running xp and i plan to dual boot 2 and completly convert the other one because it is so simple and stable.

AndyCat
August 2nd, 2007, 02:09 AM
FREE, faster, secure, +18000 software, FREE, no viruses, FREE, you can tweak it the way you want.......

potterzot
August 3rd, 2007, 10:04 PM
ultimate customization. I hate the things windows does to "help" you out. In linux, I can turn off or eliminate all the things that pop up, and can configure everything to my liking. Between openoffice, gnumeric, thunderbird and firefox, I have all the typical tools, and then emacs and gedit work fine for whatever programming I do. My coding is always based on open source stuff, so it is just easier

fenario
August 4th, 2007, 09:31 AM
http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/ has got a nifty app called TC clock
with which you can customize the clock in the Windows tray and show date and day;
i loose track of the weekdays ( from figuring out problems and being immersed in linux)
TC clock can also change the start button which you can customize and get rid off that
nasty green plastic look as you put it. I must say i like the windows98 look better
as a glass wearer. its sharper.
I love'm both, a lot of admirable heads around. Thanks to all the linux contributors.
fen

linux123
August 4th, 2007, 11:23 AM
Ubuntu is the FREEDOM !!
Customize Ubuntu's Look and Feel Better than Windows!
Low Computer Requirements than Windows
No Viruses and Spams...... and Many More...!
:guitar:

Channa

Taum
August 4th, 2007, 11:26 AM
I use Ubuntu to learn Networking in a Unix based environment. I use Windows to learn in a DOS-like environment.

While I use Ubuntu to get online, I use Windows to play games. That's about it.

caramelsoul
August 4th, 2007, 01:25 PM
I like coffe...

ed67
August 4th, 2007, 10:27 PM
There's nothing wrong with keeping Windows around for the things you need or want that Linux can't yet do.

For me, I'm no longer planning to upgrade (?) to Vista. I installed Ubuntu in a dual boot on my laptop several months ago just to see what the fuss was about. As time goes by, I found that I haven't booted to my XP side at all in over a month. I have my desktop running XP which I don't use except for FileMaker sometimes and itunes.

However, I run VNC so I can just pipe in to the XP desktop and stream music to my Airport Express. I rarely if ever actually sit in front of my XP box. I'm considering making a new database using OpenOffice so I won't even need FileMaker.

With those things working nicely, Ubuntu will take the place of Vista for me and I'll keep my XP desktop for the things Ubuntu can't do yet and just VNC to it. Nice.

rpradeep
August 5th, 2007, 07:32 AM
I am using 100% ubuntu with ratpoison in my IBM X21 Laptop for the past 6 months.

I am using linux because I am confident that I can use it as for my likeliness. Say someone don't like to see those themes or gadgets and like to concentrate on your work only what can you do in Windows and what can you do in Linux.

Basically windows is ready-made to suit a group of people while linux you create it the way you like it.

MatthewAPeters
August 5th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Linux boots faster, and less frequently. There are a TON of free applications that are well tested and open. The security is nice, and I find Gnome with Compiz to be a VERY useful workspace - the eye candy is nice, but maintaining 4,5, or 6 desktops at once is quite liberating!

I like Synaptec better than Windows Update - more informative - fewer reboots, and won't reboot my machine when I am not there.

I am a software developer, spent most of my career working on Windows platforms until recently. I find that I am using tools like grep, find, less, and tail a lot.

But MS Office is hands-down the best productivity suite I've ever seen. I've worked with SQL Server 2K, DB2, and Oracle, and think SQL Server has a real advantage over the others (there are tremendous benefits to NOT having to support multiple file systems, when it comes to DB performance and maintenance). (and if you think MS is an evil empire, you really ought to take a look at Oracle sometime!)

IMHO, Windows puts out great applications, but I am more impressed with Ubuntu's implementation of Linux as an OS than MS Windows.

Chrimson Scorpion
August 5th, 2007, 11:05 AM
Just to take this in another route, I am new to Linux & must admit stuggling but that is another story. My post here refers to my daughter. I installed Linux on her PC after it took 8 hours of adware, spyware, trojan cleaning that resulted in giving up & starting over.

Within 10 minutes of her switching on the new Linux install, I was confrounted with a sad face (not sure how sincear it was) asking for windows back.

I am now attempting to use Linux to set up specific network sorage & using IPCOP to create a secure internet gateway. There are indeed benefits from running the two systems side by side, but as my main PC is used for developing & gaming, I will continue to use windows. For my needs. Linux offers for free, what windows offers for control. I cannot see any current distribution that would allow me to easily swith all my network PC's exclusively to Linux.

As has been said many times on these forums, each has its unique benefits and it is down to the users preferences as to what is used. All I can say is I fully intend to keep trying and hopefully one day, Liux will be a serious mainstream contender that will give windows a run for its money in regards to the 'average' home user:)

RebounD11
August 5th, 2007, 11:36 AM
I dind't have the patience to read every post here ... :D I think it's forgivable, but here I my reasons for switching to Linux:

- I needed linux for school so I used dual boot at first (WinXP + SuSE 9), I kind of liked it, besides the fact that I learned new stuff while trying to get it to play mp3's movies and games (Couter-Strike actually :D), it seemed more stable

- most linuxes have poor hardware support out of the box (Sabayon linux had the best one so far - even better than Windows but that's an exception :D) anyway after a little time and a few howtos you'll get the hang of it and eventually learn to customise it more than U could ever do it on Windows

- I currently use Ubuntu because Sabayon has problems with virtualization(need windows for work :( so I use qemu) and I still didn't have the time to install Fedora 7 (these being my favorite distros) and mostly because when I had Windows I got a very ugly virus that almost fried my CPU (advice: don't let other peolple check their e-mails on your computer if you use WinXP) and now I'm virus free

- and another very important reason: stability and not resource hungry like XP. Now I can run twice as many apps as usual, and I don't need to reboot or shut down my computer ever, and that's a good thing since I am running a number of servers on it (which I might add work better under linux than thay used to under windows).

Besides all those reasons I managed to get all my favorite games to work on linux (even if I had to work a little for that) and they work better :D

PS: Not to mention it's free and in Romania at least everyone who has mostly legal apps on their computer (the minority) uses Linux or BSD, the majority that are windows users use pirated copies and illegal software, around here only corporations use legal software (and not all of those either) so if you'd like to participate at stoping piracy (or at least slowing it down) use linux, where if U have to pay for sth (very rare) the price is right, whereas windows pricing is not for everybody.

vexorian
August 5th, 2007, 02:57 PM
even better than Windows I am not sure but I think that's very easy to accomplish? In my case windows does not support ANY of my hardware out of the box, unlike 3 Linux distros I tried already they all supported all but my scanner.

atlacatl1978
August 5th, 2007, 06:38 PM
how come no one mentioned that Linux is free ???

iAndrew
August 8th, 2007, 07:59 AM
It is free. Except Red Hat or one of those distros.

vagrant
August 8th, 2007, 11:44 AM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called
you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org


main thing i like about linux based operating systems with open source applications is simply that i dont have to go against the law to be able to enjoy/afford to use my computer for the needs i have.

gimp = 0$ for the end user
photoshop = (what) 1200$?

and i agree with the initial poster...windows xp rocks for gaming, its simply never as good in ubuntu if even possible.

BrokeBody
August 8th, 2007, 03:07 PM
This thread is still active?

Die, thread, die...! :twisted:

happysmileman
August 8th, 2007, 03:34 PM
I don't use Windowsmainly because it's slow and doesn't recognize my sound card.

Wine plays many games OOTB for me and generallyu I just play Wolfenstein enemy territory.

Also I love KDE and want to start developing for it (I'll probably start when KDE4 comes out, right now I'm just enjoying my summer)

darksong
August 8th, 2007, 05:17 PM
How did you get wolvenstine to work, everytime i try entering a server it downloads a whole lot of junk for about 30mins and chucks me out after i have downloaded all this crap. I thought it could of been a compatibility thing in linux but it does it in windows aswell :S

NoSmokingBandit
August 8th, 2007, 05:27 PM
Im using linux because i've heard from a bunch of people that it is the godsend of os's. Unfortunately, from the beginning i have had nothing but problems. Compiz-fusion screwed me over so i had to reinstall ubuntu, it still refuses to recognize my soundcard, Wine doesnt work with the programs i use most often (the most important being guitar pro), i have to log in as root to burn a cd... a bunch of really random crap on top of that. Windows is not with its flaws, of course, but so many people praise linux for 'just working' when my experience tells me quite the opposite. Im not trying to bash ubuntu, im just picking out the problems i see.

vexorian
August 8th, 2007, 05:34 PM
I am not sure you are actually using ubuntu, take a look at your paragraph and make sure to find the line that kind of tells me you are not using ubuntu but another Linux distro...

kirios
August 8th, 2007, 06:00 PM
I am not sure you are actually using ubuntu, take a look at your paragraph and make sure to find the line that kind of tells me you are not using ubuntu but another Linux distro...


i have to log in as root to burn a cd...

lol

Frak
August 8th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Log in as root?
Ubuntu's Security Linux feature prevents default root accounts.
It can be created, but totally manually.
I've never had to be root to burn a CD, sounds alot like either Fedora or Gentoo.

darksong
August 9th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Log in as root?
Ubuntu's Security Linux feature prevents default root accounts.
It can be created, but totally manually.
I've never had to be root to burn a CD, sounds alot like either Fedora or Gentoo.

He might mean either sudoing or something like that. You could edit the shortcut command and add "sudo" in front of it, this give the application the admin privliged it needs.

NoSmokingBandit
August 9th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Thats what i meant. I use improper terminology because im still a noob. What i meant was that in order to write a cd i have to run "sudo (burning proggy)". Although i usually "su -" in terminal to do sudo things. So technically i am logging in as root as far as the terminal is concerned.

CJay554
August 9th, 2007, 01:09 AM
okay, well this is my view, i love windows..eh...
for "educational purposes"
if thats believable :P
but i ADORE linux, only resently have i switched... few months, getting used to the envoronment, but thats expected.
the reason i do love windows is because of the viruses and spyware.. i mean, yes, to many its a pest, but to me its a way to learn about how a computer works, how it reads code, especially when a windows exploit has been filled, a virus is created with another exploit! it never ends,
plus, if everyone went to linux with no viruses two things would happen,
one, viruses WOULD be created for linux, just for pure boredom of crackers, or there would be no business in geek squad :P
which im hoping to be doing one day >.>'
fixing other peoples computers for money... hmm... concidering most people lock themselves out of the computer and pay money to get back in, its a simple job :D

vagrant
August 9th, 2007, 08:12 AM
Im using linux because i've heard from a bunch of people that it is the godsend of os's. Unfortunately, from the beginning i have had nothing but problems. Compiz-fusion screwed me over so i had to reinstall ubuntu, it still refuses to recognize my soundcard, Wine doesnt work with the programs i use most often (the most important being guitar pro), i have to log in as root to burn a cd... a bunch of really random crap on top of that. Windows is not with its flaws, of course, but so many people praise linux for 'just working' when my experience tells me quite the opposite. Im not trying to bash ubuntu, im just picking out the problems i see.

plain linux basicaly allways work, its the rest of the stuff gui/x compatability that doesnt...but its getting there.

billw11
August 9th, 2007, 09:53 PM
looks like responses from mostly ubuntu users.
so ill post my 2 bits.
there are very few motherboards presently out there right now with an onboard DVI output, and most of the ones that do are ATI outputs which ubuntu has troubles with as far as i see.
the DVI cards are designed and realesed much later than a flat panel LCD television, with no way to update the bios of an ATI card to support a newer television used as a monitor.
with windows , i can boot up and use my lcd tv as my monitor.
with ubuntu , i boot up and see a garbled mess. cant adjust settings if you cant read the screen. im sorry , but some of us dont believe in dual monitors just to boot a O/S.
i had to go out and buy a new monitor just for ubuntu to find no internet connection after a week of trying.
5 minutes under windows , i was using both monitors at the same time CLEARLY !!! & with no help whatsoever and without opening a thousand different applications to do it. its called device manager and ubuntu should consider something like it to install needed drivers.
with everything moving closer to digital and DVI being the upcoming standard , ATI being the major supplier of the technology with little support for linux, shouldnt the real question be whatll happen to linux once theres nothing but new computers shipped with DVI as standard ???

Frak
August 9th, 2007, 11:02 PM
looks like responses from mostly ubuntu users.
so ill post my 2 bits.
there are very few motherboards presently out there right now with an onboard DVI output, and most of the ones that do are ATI outputs which ubuntu has troubles with as far as i see.
the DVI cards are designed and realesed much later than a flat panel LCD television, with no way to update the bios of an ATI card to support a newer television used as a monitor.
with windows , i can boot up and use my lcd tv as my monitor.
with ubuntu , i boot up and see a garbled mess. cant adjust settings if you cant read the screen. im sorry , but some of us dont believe in dual monitors just to boot a O/S.
i had to go out and buy a new monitor just for ubuntu to find no internet connection after a week of trying.
5 minutes under windows , i was using both monitors at the same time CLEARLY !!! & with no help whatsoever and without opening a thousand different applications to do it. its called device manager and ubuntu should consider something like it to install needed drivers.
with everything moving closer to digital and DVI being the upcoming standard , ATI being the major supplier of the technology with little support for linux, shouldnt the real question be whatll happen to linux once theres nothing but new computers shipped with DVI as standard ???
1) don't gripe at us, its ATi's fault for not releasing drivers
2) how much did you actually pay for Ubuntu?
3) Nvidia also creates motherboards that use DVI output (Foxcon anyone?)
EDIT
Also, Ubuntu has Restricted Drivers Manager to install needed drivers, and also has a Device Manger (System->Administration)
Please, research before you rant.

WonderMike
August 9th, 2007, 11:11 PM
I use Ubuntu as my base OS and use XP through Virtual Box because there are no drivers avalible for my printer/fax/scanner. There are also certain software packages that I use that there are no sutiable counterparts under Linux and won't run under Wine. I no longer trust XP or any version of windows on the Internet. Even with a firewall and anti-virus stuff still creeped in.

vexorian
August 9th, 2007, 11:16 PM
I use Ubuntu as my base OS and use XP through Virtual Box because there are no drivers avalible for my printer/fax/scanner. There are also certain software packages that I use that there are no sutiable counterparts under Linux and won't run under Wine. I no longer trust XP or any version of windows on the Internet. Even with a firewall and anti-virus stuff still creeped in.
Yeah, windows XP is great as a compatibility layer while app and hardware developers stop the BS. It is great to have it in a virtual machine as the second class OS it is meant to be.

Even though MS does not want us to virtualize windows XP... I will still do it.

Whitewater155
August 10th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Yeah, windows XP is great as a compatibility layer while app and hardware developers stop the BS. It is great to have it in a virtual machine as the second class OS it is meant to be.

Even though MS does not want us to virtualize windows XP... I will still do it.

Actually, if they didn't want us to virtualize windows XP, they wouldn't offer MS Virtual PC for MAC packaged along with Windows XP.

I love running Xubuntu. It's secure, stable and has a lot of great features. I like the fact that there are very few viruses that will effect Linux. OpenOffice is becoming a great office package. Video editing has a lot to be desired though.

As for why I still use windows? I'm in college taking computer classes. The college I attend teaches mostly Windows based software. I'm in Web Development and there is nothing anyone can say that will make me feel any different about the following: There is nothing that runs under linux that even comes close to the Adobe Creative Suite 3. It is very expensive, even at the academic price.

The one problem people have with Windows is that they run as an Administrator. If they would create a standard user account, they could solve half the problems they have with windows. It's the same as running linux as root all the time. Ubuntu got it right by deactivating the root account and making sudo the way to run things as the administrator.

Dave

kirios
August 10th, 2007, 07:05 AM
This thread is still active?

Die, thread, die...! :twisted:

Someone please put this thread to sleep .... soon!

kulturloseramerikaner
August 11th, 2007, 11:27 PM
The one problem people have with Windows is that they run as an Administrator. If they would create a standard user account, they could solve half the problems they have with windows. It's the same as running linux as root all the time. Ubuntu got it right by deactivating the root account and making sudo the way to run things as the administrator.

Dave

The problem there is the way in which the user accounts are implemented; they are pretty much just hacked off at the knees, and there is a whole host of software that simply won't run properly unless it is done as an admin. Many things, as innocuous as Sony Minidisc players and palm pilots, and a great many games, simply won't run unless they are being used with an admin account.

beast2k
August 12th, 2007, 02:59 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Ubuntu is free, check the price of windows and it will all become clear to you.

rbhkamal
August 12th, 2007, 05:54 AM
UBUNTU IS FREE!!!

If you think about it, Windows makes you pay for the same free things you get in Ubuntu..... I really don't know why people by that OS.
Ubuntu has better performance and SO MANY options. For example, if you don't like Gnome, you have other options like KDE; however, all you could do in Windows is install it and then install your apps and THATS IT! you're stuck!!... it'll be the same thing forever except that it slows doowwnn

Besides, there is nothing like compiz in windows.

But again, games are what keep me alive. I simply can't live without at least 1 hour of gaming a day :) ,so long live Windows XP :---) as long as it can play my games :)

Regards,
RK

deserthowler
August 13th, 2007, 01:43 AM
Because it is my computer and not Microsoft's.

Earl

arashiko28
August 13th, 2007, 09:49 PM
As a few have already said, no virus, no uninstall restart, reinstall... in resume, no waist of time. I have 2 HD one for linux, one for windows, and have windows just for storage and retrieve all the docs, since used the small one of trying linux and haven't removed it since. Why do i keep windows? because i'm still learning and still need to learn how to encode videos on linux, once i'm there, byebye windows, for good!:):):guitar:

dark_harmonics
August 13th, 2007, 10:44 PM
I just took the leap to Feisty and I'm loving it! If you need a good reason to switch check out compiz-fusion on youtube.

I still run XP/MAC on my work computer because i have to (Being a tech who supports these operating systems.

frisket
August 13th, 2007, 11:04 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp

If all you want is a machine to play music and videos, I agree.

I use Linux for work, and a Microsoft platform doesn't provide the facilities I need in a usable manner.

Rice_slayer
August 14th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I have both, and I am forced to use windows at the moment because my Linux hard drive is corruptted(its 15 years old). So im awaiting a new hard drive for it. I use Linux ALL the time when i had the hard drive up, only thing windows has for me is Games. For me, Linux is my school work/music/web browsing/everything but games OS, while windows is my gaming OS. If only gaming on linux was easy...

spier
August 14th, 2007, 04:40 AM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

Freedom of choice, of course! And, as it depends just on me to make it work, I`m proving myself I`m not a fool! ;)

darksidedude
August 14th, 2007, 04:44 AM
because why pay for crap, when the free version is better

here is a break down
WINDOWS

windows xp home "upgrade" 99$
av program 30$ per year
registry mechanic ( or your choice) 34.99 per year


UBUNTU
ubuntu 7.04 free
av program NONE
registry mechanic what registrys?:lolflag:

bme
August 14th, 2007, 04:49 AM
I have vista home basic(wish I had xp but vista came with laptop).I use linux for regular internet browsing,logon to the office lan for the security. However ubuntu/linux has no support for my video capture cable and no automatic detection of an external monitor which I need for making presentations so I cannot get rid of windows...

dark_harmonics
August 14th, 2007, 04:29 PM
because why pay for crap, when the free version is better

here is a break down
WINDOWS

windows xp home "upgrade" 99$
av program 30$ per year
registry mechanic ( or your choice) 34.99 per year


UBUNTU
ubuntu 7.04 free
av program NONE
registry mechanic what registrys?:lolflag:

Umm there are still viruses for linux based computers. I would still use either clamAV or another free program like AVG Free for linux.

Frak
August 14th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Umm there are still viruses for linux based computers. I would still use either clamAV or another free program like AVG Free for linux.
But you would have to be a Class A retard to install those said viruses.
If you stick with the repo's, you are safe. As long as compiling is hard, and using an official .deb is easy (viruses need to be GPG signed with a key on your computer, that you manually added to be able to not warn you about it) there will be no trouble.

ClamAV and AVG Free for Linux do bubkiss. They were created to scan Windows Boxes, not Linux ones.

beast2k
August 15th, 2007, 12:49 AM
I just took the leap to Feisty and I'm loving it! If you need a good reason to switch check out compiz-fusion on youtube.

I still run XP/MAC on my work computer because i have to (Being a tech who supports these operating systems.

I just checked out the demos on youtube and to be honest the visuals are nice but, and I don't want to sound mean here but, big deal. I would personally be much more impressed with performance improvements or maybe a better way to do the menus or other more innovative things. I feel that lately there is WAY to much attention paid to pretty pictures and graphics and not enough attention is being paid to other improvements.

Frak
August 15th, 2007, 12:57 AM
I just checked out the demos on youtube and to be honest the visuals are nice but, and I don't want to sound mean here but, big deal. I would personally be much more impressed with performance improvements or maybe a better way to do the menus or other more innovative things. I feel that lately there is WAY to much attention paid to pretty pictures and graphics and not enough attention is being paid to other improvements.
Tell that to the other Million or so that have high end computers, yet don't know it, and don't know what hardware they have. Not to mention, they would rather have a great visual experience than to have great speed and performance.

beast2k
August 15th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Tell that to the other Million or so that have high end computers, yet don't know it, and don't know what hardware they have. Not to mention, they would rather have a great visual experience than to have great speed and performance.

Exactlly one would think by now everyone would be tired of distorting windows and cute cubes and want to get on with further development.

darksong
August 15th, 2007, 01:43 AM
Tell that to the other Million or so that have high end computers, yet don't know it, and don't know what hardware they have. Not to mention, they would rather have a great visual experience than to have great speed and performance.

How would the average user who has that little computing experience know how to install and manager compiz fusion effects. I personally would rather see ubuntu devs develope a uniquie menu system - it would set the distro apart - like the guys at suse did.

Frak
August 15th, 2007, 01:49 AM
How would the average user who has that little computing experience know how to install and manager compiz fusion effects. I personally would rather see ubuntu devs develope a uniquie menu system - it would set the distro apart - like the guys at suse did.
Who says Compiz Fusion. Feisty has the Desktop Effects config in System->Preferences, which, IMHO, a nimrod could figure out (its two checkboxes and a button, SIMPLE!!!)

Gutsy enables Desktop Effects (Compiz Fusion) automatically, without the user ever having to even figure out about it being there.

Basically, Ubuntu, in my eyes at least, looks like its becoming the OSX of Linux, without the shady attitude though.

soaro77
August 15th, 2007, 06:59 AM
I think instead we should be asking, if you are capable of running Ubuntu (Linux), why continue running XP? Where are the advantages?

You prefer to pay for an OS? You prefer to be spied on? You prefer to be controlled and manipulated? You prefer to continue buying virus protection software to keep your PC safe? You prefer bloated? You prefer primitive? You prefer ugly?

I guess if you can answer yes to those questions then I can understand why you would continue to run XP. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.


Curtis

karellen
August 15th, 2007, 09:48 AM
I believe users prefer choice. and I think they use XP (or other Windows) for the application writen for it, and we all know there are damn good programs that work (at least fine) just in windows. that's why I keep xp, as long as I'm concerned

Anim8or666
August 15th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Well, I'm not a gamer... I like flash(the IDE) and can't live without it! With Crossover Standard, I got Flash MX running quickly and easily. Now that I got Flash and artrage, ther's no reason for me to turn back to Windows.:guitar:

Anim8or666
August 15th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Here's an example of a Windows user:
1. Likes Shiny things.
2. Likes flashy things.
3. Likes blinking things.
4. Loves waiting for the computer to load.
5. Doesn't get angry when his 10-page report dissappears when windows becomes retarded.
6. Likes blue(screen of error)
7. Doesn't know how to do anything without explanation at every step.
8. Is too dumb to go to my computer, so instead uses autoplay.
9. Likes viruses
10, Likes spyware
11. Likes colorful objects
12. Can't live without a pretty desktop:lolflag:

joe.turion64x2
August 15th, 2007, 10:53 PM
Here's an example of a Windows user:
1. Likes Shiny things.
2. Likes flashy things.
3. Likes blinking things.
4. Loves waiting for the computer to load.
5. Doesn't get angry when his 10-page report dissappears when windows becomes retarded.
6. Likes blue(screen of error)
7. Doesn't know how to do anything without explanation at every step.
8. Is too dumb to go to my computer, so instead uses autoplay.
9. Likes viruses
10, Likes spyware
11. Likes colorful objects
12. Can't live without a pretty desktop:lolflag:
You did not mention gaming, or how they like to manually do stuff in Paint.

karellen
August 15th, 2007, 10:57 PM
Here's an example of a Windows user:
1. Likes Shiny things.
2. Likes flashy things.
3. Likes blinking things.
4. Loves waiting for the computer to load.
5. Doesn't get angry when his 10-page report dissappears when windows becomes retarded.
6. Likes blue(screen of error)
7. Doesn't know how to do anything without explanation at every step.
8. Is too dumb to go to my computer, so instead uses autoplay.
9. Likes viruses
10, Likes spyware
11. Likes colorful objects
12. Can't live without a pretty desktop:lolflag:

:lolflag: whatever you say man, you definitely have a way with words (and objective judgements ;) )
funny post, though

darksong
August 16th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Here's an example of a Windows user:
1. Likes Shiny things.
2. Likes flashy things.
3. Likes blinking things.
4. Loves waiting for the computer to load.
5. Doesn't get angry when his 10-page report dissappears when windows becomes retarded.
6. Likes blue(screen of error)
7. Doesn't know how to do anything without explanation at every step.
8. Is too dumb to go to my computer, so instead uses autoplay.
9. Likes viruses
10, Likes spyware
11. Likes colorful objects
12. Can't live without a pretty desktop:lolflag:

Posts like this makes me want to flame you - but i wont. I am not going say what i was because that is total ********.

Ubuntu user = likes the look of dog ****?

cmat
August 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Here's an example of a Windows user:
1. Likes Shiny things.


Ubuntu is pretty shiny too.



2. Likes flashy things.


What flashes in Windows?



3. Likes blinking things.


Blinking, flashing? A bit redundant.



4. Loves waiting for the computer to load.


Windows is slower for me that Ubuntu but it's not deathly slow.



5. Doesn't get angry when his 10-page report dissappears when windows becomes retarded.


Happened to me so I can say much on that.



6. Likes blue(screen of error)


Haven't gotten one since Windows 98 back in 2002 (or was it 03) XP never gave me one until I found out my RAM was defective. But I do like blue, my wallpaper on my laptop is blue.



7. Doesn't know how to do anything without explanation at every step.

This is true but most people aren't that dumb. And people don't want to learn how to drive all over again after changing the engine.



8. Is too dumb to go to my computer, so instead uses autoplay.


Not everyone is that dumb...



9. Likes viruses

Who does?



10, Likes spyware

Nope.



11. Likes colorful objects

Ubuntu has overly colourful cartoony icons and flashy, blinky things.



12. Can't live without a pretty desktop:lolflag:

I can't either on Ubuntu.

As much as I can't stand MS and no longer use Windows. That post was just silly.

karellen
August 16th, 2007, 07:08 AM
Ubuntu is pretty shiny too.



What flashes in Windows?



Blinking, flashing? A bit redundant.



Windows is slower for me that Ubuntu but it's not deathly slow.



Happened to me so I can say much on that.



Haven't gotten one since Windows 98 back in 2002 (or was it 03) XP never gave me one until I found out my RAM was defective. But I do like blue, my wallpaper on my laptop is blue.



This is true but most people aren't that dumb. And people don't want to learn how to drive all over again after changing the engine.



Not everyone is that dumb...



Who does?



Nope.



Ubuntu has overly colourful cartoony icons and flashy, blinky things.



I can't either on Ubuntu.

As much as I can't stand MS and no longer use Windows. That post was just silly.

come on, the post was not meant to be taken seriously - it was just flame bait, why waste time to debunk his ********?

cmat
August 16th, 2007, 07:28 AM
come on, the post was not meant to be taken seriously - it was just flame bait, why waste time to debunk his ********?

It was worth the 1 minute.

yowshi
August 17th, 2007, 03:18 PM
my reason was windows vista. a fair number (although not everyone) swallowed this pill of an OS and if MS tried it once with some success you know they will try and do it again.

soxs
August 18th, 2007, 08:05 PM
i switched to Ubuntue because of:
1. i want to see Microsoft-Empire falling.
2. hate stuff like: "Click that button, and every thing will go well.."
3. having to register (XPprof) every 4th time by phone when you want to reinstall it.
4. win has N security-lags, where N is almost unlimited, as several MS *fixes* proof
5. DRM slavery & whole win vista stuff drove me insane/hatred
6. well, I am tired of going on,...so,.. simply use ubuntu!
-> If you stick to XP, well.. do so. but remember, this is linuxcountry, and most do not like win.

wolfen69
August 19th, 2007, 03:13 AM
I dual boot for the ability to learn more about computing. Windows is widely accepted yes, but Unbuntu is/has a wide market. It's versatility, no cost, and flexibility, make it a boon for folks whom cannot purchase the latest Windows copy. I personally need to save money, and I can usually find a comparable program for my needs in Unbuntu.
But on the learing curve, almost everything deals with Windows. I work for a non profit and they stick to Windows like glue. So do most of my clients. So having Windows on my computer always keeps me "in the loop" so to speak. Yes I do belive a lot of money and time would be saved with just one installed. If Unbuntu could gain the acceptance market share of Windows, then I'm sure you could soon buy an Unbuntu Computer for next to nothing. What a wonderful idea. :)

Unbuntu? is that the opposite of ubuntu?

i use linux because i despise microcrap.

gl0wst1ckn1nja
August 19th, 2007, 04:08 AM
this is how i see it

mac is great because its simple, secure, and its elegant.

windows sucks but it lets you get close to the metal to tweak your system, but thats it.

Ubuntu is the best of both worlds and then some.
-it lets you close to the metal
-its elegant
-its simple
-its super secure
-and ITS FREE!!!!
-and its just better :lolflag:
-and i love penguins :)

zdude
August 19th, 2007, 05:50 AM
My reasons for not using Windows XP anymore:
1. Tired of every six month reinstall and download, reboot, download, reboot,install all the patches. Then restoring my programs and finding most of their registrations got pwned on restore causing me to reinstall those apps.
2. Forcing me to download their WGA, IExplorer, i.e., with new licensing agreements, ones I DID NOT AGREE TO when I bought the software BUT I can't upgrade the broken/hacked software without agreeing to download whatever they force on me.
3. Next gen operating systems, i.e., Vista not supporting older hardware or software that I had paid for with hard earned money.
4. Adding DRM in their OS and once again, forcing you to agree to their new license or you can't get patches for their failed/hacked software that you paid for - this should be illegal in my opinion, it is like extortion.
5. Outdated and tired interface.
6. Even with more than 70+ patches on winXP sp2 there still are numerous security issues that crop up daily.
7. Other software is not updated automatically like Ubuntu, I have to update XP, then Office, then .Net, then all the other vendors software, arrrrrrggggg! This really sucks, probably as much are more than the other 6 reasons.
8. Support! WinXp - call for help, ask for help on forums, the first answer is always the same - REINSTALL XP! But that means my backup from last night will just corrupt the registry or some rogue DLL, or whatever so ALL my software has to be reinstalled. Arrrrgggg!

I think I could go on and on. I have WinXp still loaded on it own hard drive and it needs to be reinstalled after my last hardware upgrade and I could not bring myself to spend two days reloading everything so 8 months ago I started using Ubuntu as my main desktop and the WinXP hard drive still limps along if I need to use it (about once a month for something obscure) but its day are numbered and when it goes, so does XP.

My $0.02

rharriso
August 19th, 2007, 09:43 PM
You're right and there's no way getting around it. Linux, at this time, can not even come close to Windows in the video game sector, and probably never will, too much money involved. However, the solution that I found works best for me is to have two computers. I have a gaming computer and a work computer. Obviously the gaming one is Windows, and work Linux. However that only works for me because I'm cheap and energy bills suck. Linux allows me to use my old run down computer for a few more years, and not having to always be using my power hungry game machine. I don't need to compile code for work with a dual core processor.

darrenm
August 19th, 2007, 09:52 PM
You're right and there's no way getting around it. Linux, at this time, can not even come close to Windows in the video game sector, and probably never will, too much money involved. However, the solution that I found works best for me is to have two computers. I have a gaming computer and a work computer. Obviously the gaming one is Windows, and work Linux. However that only works for me because I'm cheap and energy bills suck. Linux allows me to use my old run down computer for a few more years, and not having to always be using my power hungry game machine. I don't need to compile code for work with a dual core processor.

PC gaming is dead though, consoles have won. The PC can't come close to the Wii. The XBOX360 and PS3 can't come close to the Wii for gameplay either so it shows that everyone wants fun, more immersive gaming. Not sitting at an expensive loud PC.

santiagoward2000
August 20th, 2007, 05:23 AM
I'm using an older laptop, which has 192mb ram. It came with Windows XP, and it was driving me nuts. I couldn't open my messenger and firefox at the same time! I decided to switch to Linux just because it's faster.

yowshi
August 20th, 2007, 07:48 PM
PC gaming isnt dead yet. theres to many different consoles for it to be dead. and theres only more coming down the road. most cant afford 3 or 4 different consoles for all thier favourite games not can they afford to be constantly buying new ones as the various companies come out with new models.


as for not being able to compete with the wii. just wait someone will come out with (possibly nintendo itself) a version of the controller that works for PC's

Depressed Man
August 20th, 2007, 07:55 PM
The problem with that is the same problem that Nintendo would've faced (that many fanboys and unreasonable people seem to think would work). The reason why consoles work so well vs PC gaming is standardization. PCs have a wide range of configurations on both software and hardware. So it's hard to develop a game for the widest range of audience on PC. (You can aim for the crowd that isn't big but has the monster PCs, you can try to include both, or you can try to get everyone like some MMORPGs do where you can run the game on 512 MBs of RAM and an integrated graphics card).

On a console (well till Microsoft started that whole "Core's have no HDD", "Premium's do" etc.. jazz) it's all standard. All processors are the same (again this also may change), graphics, ram, etc..

Now Nintendo didn't just develop the Wiimote as an add on for the GCN because it would've failed. Add-ons tend not to do as well, and it makes it hard for game companies to figure out if a person has it or not. If you look at the consoles add-on adoption rates, not alot of ideas have caught on. Rumble, DDR pads, Eyetoy, Tilting, etc..

Only when you can design the hardware so it has it implemented with every product can a game company then design a game for that console knowing everyone has at least a Wiimote and the Wii hardware.

You can't do that with PC gaming sadly. Heck there are tons of control pads out there (most of them after the PS2 control style design) yet game companies may or may not offer a configuration for that. Typically assuming everyone will use a keyboard+mouse.

Offering a Wiimote on the PC wouldn't do much. You may see one or two games (or a small handful) that come out. But you'd never see a wide adoption rate that Nintendo has with the Wii now.

yowshi
August 20th, 2007, 08:11 PM
and yet instead of buying the console many people grab a ripped CD and play them on emulators. like i said theres to many different consoles to count PC gaming out yet. plsu theres somethings you can do on a PC that you just cant with a console. hot keys are an example.

kulturloseramerikaner
August 21st, 2007, 03:07 AM
PC gaming is dead though, consoles have won.

I disagree completely; where do the latest games come out first? PC. Why? There are far more PC's in houses than there are consoles, they're not proprietary (at least in terms of hardware), and are always at the cutting edge. PC's are in a continuous state of being upgraded, vs. consoles which are released on average every 3-5 years. And by the time they are released, they're already 1-2 years obsolete, as the the design team for them has to set a deadline and freeze the hardware and feature specs before the console can be designed and manufactured; no new developments can be included past the spec freeze. If I don't have the latest and greatest, that's OK, I can still likely run it at lower settings and get by, then upgrade bit by bit. And if I don't like using a gamepad, I can use mouse+keyboard, or a minikeypad, or a joystick...
Ask any hardcore gamer; PC's still the way to go and always will be.

Frak
August 21st, 2007, 03:09 AM
Yes, but consoles in alot of ways are more popular, because they're cheaper, easier to manage, etc.

aysiu
August 21st, 2007, 03:16 AM
Ask any hardcore gamer; PC's still the way to go and always will be. Exactly the point. Hardcore gamers--PCs. Everyday gamers--consoles.

guy.murray
August 21st, 2007, 12:08 PM
Apart from the usual reasons of security, stability and freedom, also consider that...


The Ubuntu repository updates every single piece of software on your machine at the touch of a button.
There are no big step changes comparable to XP - Vista that break software
Windows don't run off the edge of the screen when you move them to the top
The cursor doesn't fall of scroll bars when you move it an inch away and therefore doesn't suddenly dump you to the top of a long document you've been scrolling
Multiple desktops are a god send when working with projects that involve several differnet applicaitons at once, such as web design
Linux should rightly be compared with XP pro which is a couple of hundred quid this side of the pond
Above all, the fantastic community that supports Linux users, such as this forum where people fall over each other to help you.


Guy

Midwest-Linux
August 21st, 2007, 06:22 PM
I have windows XP, I use linux because Microsoft came out with Vista. I want to buy a new computer without Vista, I could not find a XP machine in the major retailer stores. Thats what got me interested in alternative OS and thats how I found Ubuntu and Freespire.

TechieZero
August 22nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
Well...I had an old POS Sony Vaio P4 desktop that I was basically going to give/throw-away since under windoze it really didn't have the resources to perform well.

I loaded Ubuntu (recently Kubuntu) and it breathed new life in to the machine. Now I use it for file transfers (plan to make it a SSH server), a Teamspeak server, a way to manage some hardrives to use as network drive space (using WINS via SAMBA), a USB printer, and I have it update my OpenDNS IP addy on a frequent basis.

I am also thinking of making it a server for some game apps etc.

Basically it is doing all of the crap that I don't want bogging down my other machines that use a ton more of power (electricity) as it stays on most of the time.

UI-Freak
August 22nd, 2007, 09:22 PM
Because all of the professional programs are made for Windows. Thats why.

Washi
August 23rd, 2007, 11:43 PM
Im an IT Admin, Gamer, Programmer, 3D Person, you name it, and there is nothing I used to be able to do with Windows, that I cant now do under Linux, I went straight from using Windows at work and Windows and Linux at home (Different hard drives), directly to dumping windows, and running everything under linux, I do have VMware and I use it occasionally, but so far I think I have ran it 5 times, 4 of those when I was getting Windows stable within it.

I use my own Laptop for work so it was within my rights to drop windows for work.

As an IT person I know more than most about Security, Viruses, Trojens, Spyware, etc. To be honest I would notice a windows related problem 12 times a day, and only 1-2 Linux user related a week maximum.

All the professional Apps I use, are released on both platforms and the Linux versions are more stable, therefore more effective.

Stability lead me to saying bye bye bill.

:guitar:

downgrade
August 24th, 2007, 04:27 AM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.


Yeah, thats what I thought too, i even had antivirus an 2 antispyware things running. Except a lot of my files were constantly corrupting, i just figured it was bad luck or just my spyware interacting with things, so one day WoW needed reinstalling, so I went to do that, and it told me the cd was corrupt, I thought no way, ive installed it there before, shut down the antivirus for a second to try it again, well really all the security holes in windows had tons of viruses my antivirus just didnt know about, and suddenly my computer was wide open downloading new viruses just as fast as I could delete them... I was reinstalling windows every two months, then i realized I use firefox, gaim, openoffice... things native to linux, and i only play wow and steam games, both of which run on linux...

im enjoying it, doing a straight leap like this hasn't been easy, but after a few days of messing around and destroying my computer and bringing it back to life because i have no idea what im doing but trying to get the most out of things, i feel comfortable again already.

*shrugs* dont switch if you dont need it, but if you find yourself constantly swearing at windows like i did, id say get used to it before you finally give windows the boot for good.

multifaceted
August 26th, 2007, 08:15 AM
IMHO...

I love Ubuntu, I am diligently working on becoming acclimated with the OS and being able to perform ALL of my digi-tasks by using Ubuntu Linux. The only advantages I see right now are: Performance, efficiency and virtually no viruses and spyware/adware. That advantage list will grow larger as my user experience advances however.

I believe that once I have this OS set up to completely accommodate all of my needs, it's advantages will out weigh Windows. I personally, love the freedom and community support.

I am not a gamer whatsoever but, and avid and active musician who records and edits regularly. Because of that, I must use Windows.... until I figure out a way to with Linux...

On top of that, I listen to music constantly and is #1 prerequisite! i am still struggling to get mp3's to play in Ubuntu but, I guess that should be in another thread....

neodarksaver
August 26th, 2007, 09:43 AM
windows is indeed the platform for directx games... cuz microsoft made dx... so yea. games are holding me from making a complete switch, but dual booting is just great.

r_l
August 26th, 2007, 10:34 AM
I duel boot - but on the day to day surfing and emailing I use Ubuntu cos it is much faster to load for everything. The whole OS just boots up with everything ready quickly.

I currently have a pre-installed WinXP copy in my machine and I am quite comfortable with it after much tweaking and with all sort of win-freeware (I had win98 before and I was constantly bug-fixing and self-patching, it was a nightmare in a way).
However, since XP have to have a firewall and "almost" alway needs an anti-virus program, it starts much slower (it adds at least half to a whole minute to get every last thing to load up) . On the other hand, resource-wise, everything just runs much faster in my Ubuntu (gnome) box.

Another reason for my starting to use Ubuntu is that I am looking into the future. I want to have the freedom to have a choice of OS and not got stuck with just MSwindow. If I use Linux now, be patient with it, I am endorsing something that give me a choice in the future (and if enough people do that, it will show in the market).

I would not rule out the possibility that I would buy a machine with Vista preinstalled in the future (I found that pre-installed paid OS is often a good deal), but I sure won't just go to buy a copy to install it myself. In that meantime, I don't want to be stuck with one choice of OS (and Apple is not much of my taste).

Having said all that, sadly, I will still have to boot back to XP for certain tasks. The main thing is that Linux office applications still have much to catchup and is not quite usable for me. They are too buggy and lack-of-feature for word-processing oriented tasks (kwrite crushed on a long document and OOwrite put a weired line format on a converted document of mine, OObase doesn't do it wizard, and Impress doesn't play ppt sound corrently - long list).

I sincerely hope that the office applications in linux can be improved in the future So I don't need to boot to window anymore and I can do everything with just one OS.

CalvinK
August 26th, 2007, 05:20 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I have erased Windows Vista from my hard disk approximately 30 minutes after the purchase of my new Toshiba. Previously, I had a dual boot (with XP) only for Dragon NaturallySpeaking which has no equivalent presently on Linux... too bad. However, it's a matter of computer use. I teach in a university and I write large documents which are not well managed by Word (test with a 150 page document ). Basically Linux is disavantaged by the lack of drivers but generally, most of the softwares are better, more reliable and stable. Do try GNUmeric for example then return to Excel...
Once the hardware problem is fixed, I don't think one can prefer working with Windows over Linux. It's another problem for gaming.:lolflag:

zach12
August 26th, 2007, 05:23 PM
but the reason why i started using linux in the first place was because windows breaks every few months. so one time, instead of reformatting, i installed linux and ive been using it ever since. its more stable, faster, lets you do more with your computer, hell of a lot more fun, looks better and has practically 0 security issues.
that and it's free

leftyfrizzell
August 27th, 2007, 09:27 PM
Hmmm...maybe I'm getting tired of Bill's little ploy to his house note off of me alone? I'd like to know how many of their almost daily updates are being put in to fuss up rather than fix up.

Try to find a PC that is NOT a VISTA box and one where you do not have to have internet to set it up.The time will come where you will not be able to install their products without access to the internet. Period.

In Microsoft's eternal quest to dominate the world and to totally do it to the end users, they intigated a method to insure that they had your money for their software as many times as they can force you to pay for it.. I don't know how much time I have spent on the phone trying to convince them that my copies of their software was legit and that the problems were in their record keeping/validation process.

I decided to make the big switch on my own machine. I have installed XP Pro a bunch of times here. Some reinstalls were my fault, but the majority were Old Bill. Last week, Outlook decided that I could no longer send mail. It just plumb took away my "Send" icon. (AFTER one of their semi-mandated updates). A pretty good search of Technet did not get me an answer even close to my problem. Icons were appearing and disappearing like candy at a kiddy party. The last straw was when all of a sudden my desktop started leaving me love notes about the consequences of pirated software. One of their mandated updates held a little sneaky that put a permanent icon in your system tray that snarled at you periodically asking for a donation for Bill. I already paid for this POS once, I'm not going to do it again. And as far as VISTA goes...I'm hoping to be completly out of the MS arena long before it becomes completly necessary. The security aspect of VISTA worries to much about legitimacy of software and too little about the compatability issues, performance issues, and providing a product that is not insect ridden. I've talked to their developers over beer after a hard night of hacking and there are more problems and backdoors to that software than the law allows. The software is never completly tested. They just put it out and let the end user do their job for them. End users are usually willing, and an endless source of income, AND are real cheap as far as overhead goes.

Linux/Ubuntu/RedHat, et al have their own little quirks. But, holding your email hostage ain't one of them. I'm keeping XP on one partition for the software that I've purchased that can only run under windows, the stuff I really need for my job.

As my experience grows with Linux, and I find equivalent programs that run as reliably under Linux or whatever, then I'll format that partition too.

I've been hacking on this stuff since DOS 3.31 was a hot ticket item and I'm lucky, I'm nearing the end of my working life and don't feel any need to defend the OS's that I use to make my living.

Work with what you have to, play with what you like.

sneax
August 28th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Quite honestly I think that 'windows has viruses and spyware' is NO reason for not having windows.

Let me put it this way: people who are stupid enough to get a virus in XP are also stupid enough to exec a virus in Linux. Sure it doesn't have any, but if you keep getting people to the linux side it's inevitable that viruses will be made, once the group is big enough.

Now there aren't many viruses but I'm pretty sure it's easy to make one that will mess up the home directory of the user totally. I'm sure it's easy to make a virus that will modify other executables it can find and keep doing this, spreading around, untill it once gets executed as root (and destroying a system).

Currently there are so few linux users that it has no point of developing this, but once there will be more and more linux users viruses like this WILL be made and linux WILL start to have the need for a virusscanner and linux WILL have to create dialog boxes with 'are you sure you want to execute this program?'.

magnusalpha
August 29th, 2007, 08:31 PM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.


If it wasnt for the games I could dump windows entirely but i play games on a whim and I hate having to restart just to play it. I could get used to the complexity of it. Honestly though I dont think I will switch to full install of linux or even being first on the boot up list because of the fact that I have the exact same things on windows and linux.

To me this is the real reason that linux is not adopted by the mass public, theres really no reason to go over to linux if you have windows and a casual computer user. However I do think if you dont have an OS and dont plan on being a gamer you should use linux because it is a good system. I also think its perfect for schools/governments/large business because you wouldnt have the major problems a windows network environment has curious/dumb users.
You might want to run Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware scans on your computer. If you think you don't have any spyware/adware just because you don't click on unknown EXEs, you're in for a big surprise. You get adware and spyware just by browsing the internet, and if you have never cleaned out your Windows XP system, you're probably loaded with them.

xnstz
August 29th, 2007, 09:02 PM
I don't install any games on Linux so I'm not distracted while studying.

Ocxic
August 30th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Quite honestly I think that 'windows has viruses and spyware' is NO reason for not having windows.

Let me put it this way: people who are stupid enough to get a virus in XP are also stupid enough to exec a virus in Linux. Sure it doesn't have any, but if you keep getting people to the linux side it's inevitable that viruses will be made, once the group is big enough.

Now there aren't many viruses but I'm pretty sure it's easy to make one that will mess up the home directory of the user totally. I'm sure it's easy to make a virus that will modify other executables it can find and keep doing this, spreading around, untill it once gets executed as root (and destroying a system).


agreed a virus may be able to wipe out a users home directory, if designed correctly, but it can't infect any other system file, since the virus would have to be run as root, just to be able to infect system files, those files being any other file, not in your home directory.
so now you would have to not only find a way to run the virus, you would also have to run it as root.. for it to do any real damage.. so unless you download a program, or file that requires root to operate, and is infected with a virus or is a virus, the chances are very small that one would be able to totaly ruin a linux OS compared to a microsoft one.. remember there biggest security issue for windows is that everything is run as a root user.

karellen
August 30th, 2007, 07:00 PM
agreed a virus may be able to wipe out a users home directory, if designed correctly, but it can't infect any other system file, since the virus would have to be run as root, just to be able to infect system files, those files being any other file, not in your home directory.
so now you would have to not only find a way to run the virus, you would also have to run it as root.. for it to do any real damage.. so unless you download a program, or file that requires root to operate, and is infected with a virus or is a virus, the chances are very small that one would be able to totaly ruin a linux OS compared to a microsoft one.. remember there biggest security issue for windows is that everything is run as a root user.

I don't know about others, but data stored in /home is more valuable to me than the system files. I could install the os anytime, but if I lose some personal docs there's no way I could restore them. so a virus affecting just the user account is indeed very dangerous

aysiu
August 30th, 2007, 07:26 PM
I don't know about others, but data stored in /home is more valuable to me than the system files. I could install the os anytime, but if I lose some personal docs there's no way I could restore them. so a virus affecting just the user account is indeed very dangerous
That's why regular backups are important.

popch
August 30th, 2007, 07:31 PM
() a virus () can't infect any other system file, since the virus would have to be run as root, .

Yes it can if it runs itself with sudo. Write a nice message before doing that, and you probably will find enough users who are daft enough to enter their passwords.

aysiu
August 30th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Yes it can if it runs itself with sudo. Write a nice message before doing that, and you probably will find enough users who are daft enough to enter their passwords.
It's true. Social engineering is probably the biggest threat to home user security.

karellen
August 30th, 2007, 08:14 PM
That's why regular backups are important.

I know. there's no such thing as "too careful'

popch
August 30th, 2007, 08:16 PM
It's true. Social engineering is probably the biggest threat to home user security.

Not only home users. Unfortunately. The same users tend to do those things at work at well, where they can put whole LANs at risk.

joe.turion64x2
August 30th, 2007, 10:11 PM
I don't know about others, but data stored in /home is more valuable to me than the system files. I could install the os anytime, but if I lose some personal docs there's no way I could restore them. so a virus affecting just the user account is indeed very dangerous
The good thing about viruses (if any) hitting the user's home directory is that the rest of the users (the innocent ones) don't get affected by the mistake of the former user.

Joe.

spupy
August 30th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Linux -> Gnome-system-manager -> Processes:
-firefox
-pidgin
-application browser.
-xterm

Windows XP -> Task Manager -> Processes:
- cdeetray.exe (wtf is this?)
- toshtpu.exe (wtf is this?)
- awp.exe (a virus)
- scvv.exe (wtf is this?)

I so hate windows for that... :mad:

karellen
August 31st, 2007, 12:23 AM
The good thing about viruses (if any) hitting the user's home directory is that the rest of the users (the innocent ones) don't get affected by the mistake of the former user.

Joe.

I was just saying that running as a user with limited privileges doesn't mean that user is immune to harmful apps (be it on windows or linux)

The Foz
August 31st, 2007, 11:21 AM
Lots of reasons.

I use Ubuntu Linux on my server (web & email), which needs to run 24/7. No way that I can get the necessary reliability from Windows.

Ubuntu is free, as are all the applications that I use. I don't need to pay when I buy a new machine, or upgrade my hardware.

The system is open & documented, so if I want to write my own software I can.

Linux is faster, for most things, due mainly to better virtual memory.

Linux is more resilient. If there is a problem, it can usually be fixed without a reboot, whereas in Windows a reboot is often needed.

There is no spyware embedded in Linux, like there is in Windows.

In Linux I don't have to have DRM in my media applications if I don't want it - in Windows I don't get the choice.

There is much lower risk from virus & other malware code in Linux.

Linux is fully multi-user. Services are started at boot time. In Windows many services (Anti-virus, 3rd party firewalls, desktop search, etc.) are started for each user session (Windows anyway only normally supports 2 user sessions at a time), which can cause problems when there are multiple user sessions.

Linux is properly multi-tasking. Windows is still not good at multi-tasking.

Linux is fully manageable and configurable. I can set it up exactly as I want.

viciousvex
August 31st, 2007, 04:30 PM
I don't like Bill Gates politics with Windows:
- If you want DirectX 10, upgrade to Vista
- If you want that, upgrade to Ultimate Professional Superior Megalomania Version

I don't like the Windows "Megatools", e.g.:
- what eventually was Nero Burning ROM is now Nero Burning/Editing/VideoCutting/MusicRemixing/DiskLabeling/Toasting and DoingTheDishes-Software
- what was WinAMP Music Player is now WinAMP CDBurner, divx, xvid, DVDPlayer, CDPlayer and loads in about a minute.

I don't like Windows because things break and you don't even have the slightest clue why. And they break badly (meaning user profile is defect or things like set)

I don't like WIndows XP because it has this crappy Kindergarten-GUI by default. Too good that you can disable this pain in the a**.

I don't like Windows XP because it fails to be helpful by hiding files, extensions, folders, menues, etc.

I don't like Windows because it breaks over time.

I don't like Windows because you're missing LOTS of tools after you've set it up. SSH? A browser that works?

I don't like Windows because it's not Unix. Where are awk, sed, grep, perl, dd, vi, regular expressions, apache... It even hasn't got xterm!! You gotta use that crappy DOS commandline box. Where is my bash or csh, tcsh, ksh?

I don't like Windows because Billy does everything to keep competitive applications away from the system. So it has undocumented system calls, strange APIs, wonderful obscure protocolls... You gotta use Visual Studio to concentrate on developing and not on errors caused by incompatibilities of competing development environments.

I don't like Windows because they're soon building the "Bundestrojaner" for it. Sure Linux and MacOS are coming next, but it's going to be tough **** to produce this thingy for all of these diverse distributions. So i don't like Windows because it's a monoculture.

I don't like Windows because it is NOT state of the art. There is hardly a feature in Windows Vista that I deem innovative. Bill concentrates on building a system that doesn't crash too often - that's positive - but he's a bit late with that. He is always one or some more steps behind. Where are innovations? MacOS has them. Windows not.

So many points against Windows... Hmm... And I am still using it from time to time. Here is why:

- Our company uses Windows clients.
- Propellerhead Reason is not available on Linux.
- I like to play games but not on a console (I need a keyboard for having fun with MMORPGs, RTS, chatting in between, etc.). I don't have a TV.

That's my list.

For people who are interested in computers Linux, BSD or one of the many other free alternatives out there is better than Windows. Why? Because Windows is like a black box. You never really know what's inside until you break it. Free OSs are much more transparent. You can learn much from your system by simply using them. You don't learn anything of computer basics by using Windows. You learn to use crappy applications, and how to work around bugs and clitches. You learn that when an application is not available anymore that you have a very hard time to switch to something new. You are not flexible.

In Unix there are endless ways to get things done. In Windows? Hmm... Some?

By the way: Open source is the way to go. You will see.

Regards
vex

toupeiro
August 31st, 2007, 04:57 PM
Everyone has their own reasons for using linux. I just wanted to point something out for those who choose to stay with Windows XP and not upgrade to vista:


For me, I'm no longer planning to upgrade (?) to Vista.

That may be fine, for now. But the truth of the matter is that you are making a choice to stay on the windows platform, and further, a choice to use a lastgen version of their platform which will eventually lose support and have less and less software written for it. Windows vista is completely different under the hood so don't expect all things to be backwards compatible.

I have supported UNIX and Linux for a long time at work. I finally chose to run linux at home because I do not like the direction Microsoft is taking their operating system, and grow tired of maintaining all the tasks at home to ensure windows isn't going to break on me. I do IT support for a living. The last thing I want to do is come home and work some more.

So, I chose to move away from XP for my personal opinion that Linux is a superior operating system, and also that there was no longer an upgrade path for the Windows OS I was willing to use. I don't believe in the concept of running on last-gen software, if there is a better alternative.

neorou
August 31st, 2007, 05:55 PM
I need *nix shells because it syntactically makes more sense than the Windows command. It's easier for me to do batch programming in *nix than it is in Windows. Also, I can achieve more with *nix using lesser hardware capabilities than Windows. For me, it is the other way around - I HAVE to use windows because I HAVE to, not because I WANT TO. I use it because it is easier for me to know what it is the poor suckers at my workplace and some people in my family and my friends are talking about when they ask me a Windows-related computer question. Also, 'real' open source works better one *nix. Last but not least - Ubuntu (or in my case, Kubuntu), makes *nix so much easier and *prettier*. Thank goodness for Ubuntu...

By the way, here is another Windows et-peeve that kills me at work and at home: Windows XP installation and activation. I can use image tools, but I can use one image for one machine only. If I change the hardware on the machine, I may not be able to use my image anymore. No mas, Gracias!!!

svtfmook
September 1st, 2007, 04:30 PM
i like not having to enter in a credit card number every time i want to download some software.

karellen
September 1st, 2007, 11:25 PM
i like not having to enter in a credit card number every time i want to download some software.

you know, there are things like freeware/open-source programs in windows...;)

joe.turion64x2
September 2nd, 2007, 12:08 AM
you know, there are things like freeware/open-source programs in windows...;)
If you stick with open source programs in Windows you'd probably end with a 'Linux type' environment (GIMP, OpenOffice, etc) plus antivirus (AVG is free) and firewall (Zone Alarm is free too), but then, what's the point of the security issues?

Joe.

Zoiked
September 2nd, 2007, 12:08 AM
I mainly started using Linux about 4 years ago; just to mess around with a new operating system. Then I quit using Linux because of the complexity of things, using a terminal was not my thing. Now, I have Ubuntu installed and I am using it equally with my Windows XP on a different partition.

Everyone says the advantages of using Linux, but what about the disadvatages.
Advantages
1. Viruses / Linux is not 100% protected from viruses as they say but it does better then XP.
2. Fun / Its fun to mess around with something completely different. From Beryl to a completely different set of programs.
3. ActiveX / I hate ActiveX. Period. Don't see nothing wrong with the registry in Windows.
4. Drivers / For the drivers that automaticly install, its a breeze compared to Windows.
Just a few.
5. Customizable / Though it may not be aparent at first, Linux is 99% more customizable then windows; probably cause its open source.
Its Free / Though $200 dollars isn't that bad considering your going to be using it for 5 years until a next release. Lol, Vista took forever.
6. DRM / I hate this things for more reasons then I hate anything else. Restricting my Music/Videos is one thing that I do not accept; especially if I bought them. Shove that **** straight up your *** MS. :p


Disadvantages
1. Complexity / You can't do everything with a GUI, many people still use the terminal; which is fine if you have computer experience. Average Joe might not think this is nice.
2. Drivers / To the drivers that don't install, its a pain in the rear to install them. From configuring files to compiling sources. Took 2 days to get my Ati driver to work in Fedora, luckely, Ubuntu changed this. :D
3. Compiling / Compiling programs from source is the thing I hate the most. Its a thing I about threw my computer out the window for. Its stupid, and I don't see how programmers are to lazy to make a .deb or .rpm package.
4. Errors / Linux isn't 100% error free. I have gotten more errors and ran into problems on linux more then Windows. One time, my whole X system locked out and I had no idea what to do. I had to resart to reinstalling Ubuntu, which is not something anyone wants to do everytime they get an error.
5. Programs / I miss alot of programs from Windows. One, I might add is Windows Media Player which is 100% better then Rhythmbox and you all know it. Photoshop is also 99% better then Gimp and is what most professionals use.

Note: All of this post is in my opinion, I couldn't care what you say.

Frak
September 2nd, 2007, 12:10 AM
I use Cygwin and MinGW in Windows all the time.
In fact, I'm working on porting Amarok to Windows ATM.

hessiess
September 2nd, 2007, 04:11 PM
3. Compiling / Compiling programs from source is the thing I hate the most. Its a thing I about threw my computer out the window for. Its stupid, and I don't see how programmers are to lazy to make a .deb or .rpm package.

i think the resen binarys arnt alwase provided is so that the aplication is compatable with the maximim nomber of distros posoble


5. Programs / I miss alot of programs from Windows. One, I might add is Windows Media Player which is 100% better then Rhythmbox and you all know it. Photoshop is also 99% better then Gimp and is what most professionals use.

there is absolutly nothing wrong with gimp, the interface and the name seem to put people off it tho:( it dus lack a few features, but most people would never need these anyway.
i HATE windows midia player, its just horoble!

higashi
September 2nd, 2007, 04:20 PM
Remember the microsoft motto: "Do it our way, or no way at all"

To tell you the truth, the reason I started using linux is because my dad is a huge fan of linux and, when I go tmy new computer, he just wouldn't let me install windows. I used to argue with him, but now I argue with anyone who thinks windows is even slightly better than linux.
At first, linux can be a pain to get used to... but once you got it figured out, you'll have the computer of your dreams. Once I got wine, I started downloading exe's like crazy because there were just so many that I wanted... and even though I was being dumb downloading all those exe's, I still didn't get any viruses or anything.
The only reason I would use windows is if I hit my head REALLY hard and went crazy. Windows is the biggest piece of crap rip-off ever.
I find it really stupid that most ppl won't even try linux. I think the reason for that is because they figure "Well, it's free... how great can it be?".
I'm still not completely used to ubuntu feisty (which is why I joined this forum) but I still have fun trying to figure things out and using the things I got.
Anyways, that's my opinion. G'bye

higashi
September 2nd, 2007, 04:23 PM
i think the resen binarys arnt alwase provided is so that the aplication is compatable with the maximim nomber of distros posoble


there is absolutly nothing wrong with gimp, the interface and the name seem to put people off it tho:( it dus lack a few features, but most people would never need these anyway.
i HATE windows midia player, its just horoble!

If you REALLY want to replace windows movie maker, try Pitivi. If you want the gimp that resembles adobe's photoshop, try gimpshop (www.gimpshop.net). Also, if you really want photoshop, you can just open it with wine (windows emulator).

joe.turion64x2
September 2nd, 2007, 05:00 PM
If you REALLY want to replace windows movie maker, try Pitivi. If you want the gimp that resembles adobe's photoshop, try gimpshop (www.gimpshop.net). Also, if you really want photoshop, you can just open it with wine (windows emulator).
Your link to GIMPSHOP is broken mate.

Joe.

DEMONIIIK
September 4th, 2007, 04:36 PM
My biggest deal with anything is ease of use and integration.

I want to customize everything I can, with more options than necessary. However, I don't want to be able to customize options that do nothing/render my computer unbootable (ie. "What value should 0x003F be?" ...pretty useless and pretty scary). Also, I want automatic suggestions and such, but I don't want it to leave me WITHOUT choices. (I'm very picky.) So, this leaves us where everything Linux/Windows lies. Linux gives you two options: automatic everything so the Average Joe doesn't need to learn the insides of Linux to use it, or, we have the customize-it-yourself version, where maximum customization can be achieved... through extensive research and work. There is no medium. Windows... surprisingly... wins there. Unfortunately, despite its' advanced options for power-users, it still has the average-user, dummy-safe controls and alerts. (Vista's new UAC... uggh... and then, if you turn it off, it leaves that stupid Security Shield in your taskbar, making you think something is wrong).

Everything is made for Windows. Windows has such a high chance of a program being compatible with it, I'll bet you no one even looks at System Requirements unless they have run into the problem before. (Hey, I'm guilty as charged. And I still don't look). Linux, on the other hand, I have found that lots of major, easy-to-use distributions come packed with loads of programs made for Linux. This is both nice and annoying, since my first time ever, I tried installing it all but wanted to take out the 50 different calculators, office suites, etc. This is another issue with Linux. There are too many of one program and not enough of another.

Also, going back to customization. I would much rather install something and have it figure out what to do to be compatible with my Operating System and allow me to edit settings (most Windows programs) than to either be included with the Install disc (for Linux) or force me to edit and compile it myself (lots of Linux programs, and even Linux distributions.)

Windows, despite it's horrid setup, at least is mostly automatic and doesn't require 'customization' like quite a few Linux distros (ie. Gentoo, Slax, etc.)

However, Linux has its bright side. Linux is much more secure, it is free (we have a winner!), it comes easily in LiveCD forms (not too necessary unless running Diagnostics, Recovery, Data Extraction... etc), it has an awesome penguin as the mascot instead of the iconic Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (not mascots but neither are the Apple or Flag), it comes with a 64-bit version for nearly everything, whereas Windows took ages to come out with XP Pro 64, and there are only about 2 Vista distros that come with 64-bit versions (which cost more and there is no express upgrade option to them...)

I really do like Linux, but frankly, Windows has more 'user-friendly' features. Linux is a fun toy, but if you aren't super-duper-power-user and you try playing with it, it bites back. (Sometimes HARD.)

...All this said, I have one last thing. The biggest (and most summarizing) difference between Windows and Linux: Windows developers get paid, and therefore have much more drive to make Windows good for users. Sure, Linux hobby hackers are good for making good, stable, secure systems, but let's face it. How many people in the world need easy-to-use things? *raises hand* Here's one, and I know I'm not alone :)





...and for those wanting that tooltip fix for XP: http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=10

Depressed Man
September 4th, 2007, 07:25 PM
My biggest deal with anything is ease of use and integration.

I want to customize everything I can, with more options than necessary. However, I don't want to be able to customize options that do nothing/render my computer unbootable (ie. "What value should 0x003F be?" ...pretty useless and pretty scary). Also, I want automatic suggestions and such, but I don't want it to leave me WITHOUT choices. (I'm very picky.) So, this leaves us where everything Linux/Windows lies. Linux gives you two options: automatic everything so the Average Joe doesn't need to learn the insides of Linux to use it, or, we have the customize-it-yourself version, where maximum customization can be achieved... through extensive research and work. There is no medium. Windows... surprisingly... wins there. Unfortunately, despite its' advanced options for power-users, it still has the average-user, dummy-safe controls and alerts. (Vista's new UAC... uggh... and then, if you turn it off, it leaves that stupid Security Shield in your taskbar, making you think something is wrong).

Everything is made for Windows. Windows has such a high chance of a program being compatible with it, I'll bet you no one even looks at System Requirements unless they have run into the problem before. (Hey, I'm guilty as charged. And I still don't look). Linux, on the other hand, I have found that lots of major, easy-to-use distributions come packed with loads of programs made for Linux. This is both nice and annoying, since my first time ever, I tried installing it all but wanted to take out the 50 different calculators, office suites, etc. This is another issue with Linux. There are too many of one program and not enough of another.

Also, going back to customization. I would much rather install something and have it figure out what to do to be compatible with my Operating System and allow me to edit settings (most Windows programs) than to either be included with the Install disc (for Linux) or force me to edit and compile it myself (lots of Linux programs, and even Linux distributions.)

Windows, despite it's horrid setup, at least is mostly automatic and doesn't require 'customization' like quite a few Linux distros (ie. Gentoo, Slax, etc.)

However, Linux has its bright side. Linux is much more secure, it is free (we have a winner!), it comes easily in LiveCD forms (not too necessary unless running Diagnostics, Recovery, Data Extraction... etc), it has an awesome penguin as the mascot instead of the iconic Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (not mascots but neither are the Apple or Flag), it comes with a 64-bit version for nearly everything, whereas Windows took ages to come out with XP Pro 64, and there are only about 2 Vista distros that come with 64-bit versions (which cost more and there is no express upgrade option to them...)

I really do like Linux, but frankly, Windows has more 'user-friendly' features. Linux is a fun toy, but if you aren't super-duper-power-user and you try playing with it, it bites back. (Sometimes HARD.)

...All this said, I have one last thing. The biggest (and most summarizing) difference between Windows and Linux: Windows developers get paid, and therefore have much more drive to make Windows good for users. Sure, Linux hobby hackers are good for making good, stable, secure systems, but let's face it. How many people in the world need easy-to-use things? *raises hand* Here's one, and I know I'm not alone :)





...and for those wanting that tooltip fix for XP: http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=10

When you talk about developers for Windows and Linux, do you mean software or the actual OS? Because if your talking about the OS, I'm pretty surprised that the current Linux (or rather Ubuntu) does pretty well against Windows OS wise and they don't get paid (or even as much assuming that). Not to mention that it's free vs an operating system you pay whatever amount for (or has to be preinstalled on each computer).

Anyway I'm really anal about tweaking an OS to my specifications (and I like to make it so regardless whether I'm using Vista, XP, Feisty Fawn, or Gutsy Gibbon the majority of the interface is the same). A dock at the bottom, taskbar at the top. Same email clients, browsers, etc..

But the thing that gets me about Windows is some of their programs are extremely difficult to modify (and likely illegal but whatever). Especially when some of those developers (Linux too though not as often) aren't thoughtful enough to give me the damn option to install the program where I want it to! Is it that much to ask that programs get installed in Program Files? And that they don't make icons on my freaking desktop (thank god that they have option boxes for most programs now).

Oh and splash screens, I despise those. Why is it when I launch some programs they insist on covering up the middle part of my screen with their logo until the program loads. OpenOffice is guilty of this too (though I believe there's a way to turn it off, I just haven't found it yet..at least in Linux. I don't think my Windows version does it). Very annoying.

aysiu
September 4th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Many Linux developers do get paid--not all of them, but it is a mistake to say all Linux developers are volunteers.

Depressed Man
September 4th, 2007, 10:02 PM
I figured. But still..comparing an OS created by a company that sells for (whatever amount) 300-400? Depending on the version, to an OS that's pretty much given away for free lol. Not bad, not bad at all.

NoSmokingBandit
September 4th, 2007, 10:40 PM
Oh and splash screens, I despise those. Why is it when I launch some programs they insist on covering up the middle part of my screen with their logo until the program loads. OpenOffice is guilty of this too (though I believe there's a way to turn it off, I just haven't found it yet..at least in Linux. I don't think my Windows version does it). Very annoying.

Splash screens are easy to get rid of. All you need is the program Resource Hacker and you can replace the splash screen with a blank png 1px X 1px. Its still there, but its invisible and wont interfere with clicking on stuff. Some programs, i assume, you can just delete the splash from the exe altogether. I know you can for peer guardian 2, as i have done it myself.

edd07
September 4th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Splash screens are easy to get rid of. All you need is the program Resource Hacker and you can replace the splash screen with a blank png 1px X 1px. Its still there, but its invisible and wont interfere with clicking on stuff. Some programs, i assume, you can just delete the splash from the exe altogether. I know you can for peer guardian 2, as i have done it myself.
But that's hardly the point. It is best to have the problem solved, rather than making you hack around it. I agree, splash screens are awful, annoying, and not useful at all. Actually, I think they're meant for the branding of the software, which in Linux, it's supposed to be a non-issue

Depressed Man
September 5th, 2007, 01:07 AM
For Windows and Linux I've figured how to disable the splash screen for OpenOffice (hoorah!)

jerrylamos
September 5th, 2007, 01:56 AM
1. XP is slower. Ubuntu is faster on same hardware, same tasks.
2. XP keeps getting security updates like mad, and forever wants to check to see if my copy of XP is "legal" when they are the ones that activated it in the first place. Can't they keep records? A few Ubuntu security updates come thru.
3. Had to reload XP from the official partition. It was the devil to get everything running sort of like it was, I'm still missing some stuff, and it took 2 days and multiple calls to India to get XP activated. Reloading Ubuntu much easier, and didn't need any calls to India.
4. Open Office does a nice job of copying internet articles with graphics. Word either doesn't get the graphics or puts them in the wrong places. Yes, I can put Open Office on XP in addition to Word so I have. Duplication.
5. Some internet videos are dependent on Microsoft like ABC News. Ubuntu does BBC & NYTimes & YouTube O.K.
6. I use three computers. I'm not about to buy three copies of Vista. Two of them (dual or triple or quad boot) have Gutsy Tribe 5 and one has Feisty. Cost? downloaded 1 copy over internet....
7. From time to time despite firewalls and virus checkers I notice XP is clucking away when I'm not doing anything, or taking a looooong time to shut down. Time to run Spybot again, delete some garbage it finds, and all is quiet again. Ubuntu doesn't have that situation.
8. So I use Ubuntu for most everything except some stuff which is coded Microsoft only.
9. Yep, I've tried about a dozen other Linux distro's, but keep coming back to Ubuntu except for CD Live Persistent mode which has been broken since mid February when Ubuntu picked up some buggy Debian boot scripts. Too bad they can't either revert to the Ubuntu boot scripts that worked, or fix the ones they "had" to pick up. Yes there's a launchpad bug, and yes some users have made progress but not Ubuntu development.

Cheers, Jerry

NoSmokingBandit
September 5th, 2007, 02:39 AM
But that's hardly the point. It is best to have the problem solved, rather than making you hack around it. I agree, splash screens are awful, annoying, and not useful at all. Actually, I think they're meant for the branding of the software, which in Linux, it's supposed to be a non-issue

Its not really a hack, you are just removing a file from the .exe. Its no different than modifying a linux program, its just done in a different way.

wolfen69
September 6th, 2007, 05:29 AM
i havn't touched my xp drive in months. i kinda use the xp drive for backing up documents, bookmarks, pics. at least it's good for something.

Ioky
September 6th, 2007, 05:35 AM
Well, I mean Windows are good only and only for the games. beside that. I can't see any reason that any one would like to use windows. For people who know a little about computer and need software to use a editor like serious photo editing, or some other pro editing, they can use MAC, which also a Unix like system. And for people who have more knowledge on computer, Linux are the best to go, first, It doesn't start super Geeky, second, it let you know what can you really do with a computer! For people who use Linux, they often feel, that is my computer, and my own computer that no one have. And that is because, I can customize anyway they want. However, I think a lot of people Miss understand about hardware and Linux, In Fact!! Linux Can Be much more fit with Hardware, then Windows. The reason why there are more hardware can be use in windows because company of the hardware make driver for them, windows itself don't support it. But Linux Do. when I say Linux I mean the Huge Open Scores World behind it. they are kind of One thing. beside. Why would you like to get a 1000s dollars machine to play games? while you can play better game in some 250 to 600 dollars system? haha. However it is good to know Windows. more knowledge is always a good thing. you never know maybe one day Msoft will found it's way out, But NOT today. Ubuntu is a good one for anyone who start using Linux, it give a lot of support.

karellen
September 6th, 2007, 07:31 AM
for fun and diversity

o3rat
September 6th, 2007, 08:43 PM
xp has to many updates and requires virus scanners/spyware apps

vacman1
September 6th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Seriously though.... other than buying a new machine with windows installed... who really pays for windows? lol

NoSmokingBandit
September 6th, 2007, 11:52 PM
I've heard of nobody actually buying a vista install dvd. Mostly its obtained through shadier methods. The "linux is free" arguement kinda dies when xp and vista are just as free and easy to get.

yowshi
September 7th, 2007, 12:48 AM
linux isnt just free as in beer it's free as in speech. meaning i dont have any legal issues to worry about when i do something to my own machine or the OS i obtained so i could use it. with windows you may have bought the OS but you dont even actually own the copy you bought. read the vista eula sometime, or you can google it there are many sites which have the highlights in bullet point form for you

satyam
September 11th, 2007, 06:49 AM
I'm sure many people have said this before, but I'll say it as well.

Linux is:

1. More stable - no viruses, little breakage. Never lose that project for school again!

2. More free - no adware, spyware, whatever else. Free quality software! :KS

3. Smaller footprint / more efficient - I'm running a slow machine. Perhaps even ancient. But, since I'm not gaming, I don't miss a thing. Doubt I could say the same if I were running winblows. Especially with the ridiculously huge footprint of their latest "offering".

4. More fun. More customizable. - I install what I need, and ignore what I don't.

5. It just ROCKS!!!!! :guitar:

My 2c worth.

karellen
September 11th, 2007, 07:28 AM
I've heard of nobody actually buying a vista install dvd. Mostly its obtained through shadier methods. The "linux is free" arguement kinda dies when xp and vista are just as free and easy to get.

all so true. you should see how the things go here in Romania...;)

bazmati
September 11th, 2007, 07:34 AM
there is one thing i love about ubuntu -- when you shutdown ... it shut's down -- doesn,t ask me if i'm sure i want to ,, doesn't tell me this program cant and so i have to report or not and then wait or cancel for it to close and then maybe after all that i will shutdown,, common!

ok i still need my xp for a few things but i'm now 90% on ubuntu and i'm amazed by it every day

zipperback
September 11th, 2007, 07:38 AM
I've heard of nobody actually buying a vista install dvd. Mostly its obtained through shadier methods. The "linux is free" arguement kinda dies when xp and vista are just as free and easy to get.

Linux = Open Source, Free, and legal to copy and distribute.

Windows = Closed Source, not Free, and NOT legal to copy and distribute.

I don't use Windows.
I have no use for Windows.

"IF" Windows were to be released by Microsoft under the GPL then "maybe" I might consider running it. However, since they don't, there isn't any way I would want it on ANY of my systems.

Linux meets 100% of MY requirements for business and personal needs. :popcorn:

- zipperback

Frak
September 11th, 2007, 12:23 PM
I've heard of nobody actually buying a vista install dvd. Mostly its obtained through shadier methods. The "linux is free" arguement kinda dies when xp and vista are just as free and easy to get.
I have, but now I'm reconsidering it. I think I should have used shadier methods.

NoSmokingBandit
September 11th, 2007, 06:24 PM
If you do, check out a version called Vista Lite. Its got a bunch of crap ripped out of the cd image, so the installer fits on a cd. It runs a whole lot faster too, almost as fast as my XP Lite version.

liviubero
September 11th, 2007, 09:02 PM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux? The question is, if you have Ubuntu, why would you use XP?

My answer is: Dreamweaver and Flash. Only for that, and now I regret that I allocated to the win partition 30 Gb! 15 is more than enough.
On the first day I installed xp, I got the first troyan. Just wanted to download a pdf and bang! So I decided that I really don't have so much time to stay the whole day to patch the damn windows, I disabled networking and switched to Ubuntu. Now I only boot in win only to edit some swf files. But with no networking. I just hate it to think the whole time if my system isn't perhaps infested. Windows is just a pain in the a... in my opinion. It just make things more difficult.
The day when some open software will come out which could replace Flash, then I will smile and say good bye windows, hope to never see you again.
The thing is that if you want to make web design, then you just HAVE to use sometimes Flash. So I HAVE to boot in windows...

Frak
September 11th, 2007, 09:54 PM
If you do, check out a version called Vista Lite. Its got a bunch of crap ripped out of the cd image, so the installer fits on a cd. It runs a whole lot faster too, almost as fast as my XP Lite version.
Or, do it yourself :) vLite

anemptygun
September 11th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Like everyone else said... Stability, no viruses, customization.

One thing that I think is cool are the window managers (compiz, beryl etc.) I am running compiz with the kiba-dock and I think that it looks much better than windows vista. plus I have had a vi$ta machine for about 6 months that i play games on (counter-strike source mostly :P) and that machine has blue screened me about 20 times. But linux is just my preference :)

Arcsis
September 13th, 2007, 04:45 PM
And the other reason I dual-boot is I can learn a bit more each day gradually rather than just jumping in. I do know enough now to ditch XP for good, but I'm just not ready yet. :-|

Amen! :)

ethidda
September 14th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Because linux have awesome guis. I particularly like enlightenment. Also, a bunch of rendering software is painstakingly slow on my 1.5 yr old computer, but runs fairly smoothly on Linux.

I keep windows because Im familiar with it and I know all the video encoder/editing software there (and linux doesnt have any good .*** subtitle support that I could find), but Im much more comfortable doing things in commandline when I know how to--and DOS commandline has been severely stunted.

Besides, its always good to have more than one system installed on a computer, in case one (read: Windows) crashes (unless you have multiple computers... but youd still have difficulty accessing your internal harddrive). And theyre useless unless you can use them both.

asmiller-ke6seh
September 14th, 2007, 07:35 PM
I've heard of nobody actually buying a vista install dvd. Mostly its obtained through shadier methods. The "linux is free" arguement kinda dies when xp and vista are just as free and easy to get.

Installing Linux for free is under license; installing Windows "for free" is illegal, and could get you into serious legal trouble. It could even get your PC confiscated ... and Microsoft will wipe your illegal software when you connect to their website, while Ubuntu automatically offers you updates for all your truly Open Systems Licensed software ... not just the OS, but all those wonderful toys - er, I mean wonderful applications.

hoggbottom59
September 15th, 2007, 11:15 AM
Two good reasons - it will always be free to upgrade Linux and it will run on anything. Bill and Steve will always charge you for the new stuff.

Linux is cutting edge. Sure it does require a bit more effort but it is free and you won't get caught in the 'upgrade trap' that commercial software has. There is every utility you need for free.

Compare this to the Mac - you have to buy and upgrade to MacOS X now that Classic is nearly obsolete. An old machine will run MacOS X but it's designed to run on newer machines. Also Mac will always have a restrictive hardware base.

Compared to Windows - in 5 years or so Xp will become obsolete and unsupported. Vista has huge and stupid hardware demands which some users can't afford. 98 is now unsupported and some older machines will not support 2K.

While there's linux there's always hope for those older machines that can't run any newer OS well and less chance of landfill. They always be able to easily upgrade too.

Oh and I forgot to mention something really powerful - Linux's Package Manager allows you to upgrade ALL your software centrally, you have to upgrade each program separately on other systems. Linux can upgrade all your software automatically when there is a new release keeping it up to date. No more faffing about looking for updates.

Also OpenOffice 2 is very good now and I feel less interfering than Word is. It is more compatible with Office now. Free software will never quite be as good as some commercial software but there is also commercial software for Linux if you need it.


Leon.

misfitpierce
September 15th, 2007, 11:20 AM
Don't have XP cause it sucks which is why I use ubuntu :)

hellion0
September 15th, 2007, 06:36 PM
I have Windows XP running on one of my desktops. For its purposes, for the moment, Windows is the better option there. (Sound card and scanner compatibility are both iffy, as is Shoutcasting from anything other than the command-line.)

However, I run Ubuntu on the least-powerful and most-underestimated machine I currently use: my Thinkpad 600. Why? Security. If I'm roaming about and I'm on a (semi-)public wifi, I don't want some kiddiot to take advantage of my machine via some little-known backdoor. I could keep a Windows system up-to-date enough to repel anything short of a dedicated blackhat, true, but the fact remains this: for what I use THAT machine for, Linux is the best fit.

It's all about functionality, which is why my household workhorse uses XP.

lowprofile
September 15th, 2007, 10:10 PM
To save the world.

Because if Micro$oft carry on the way they are going, they will end up creating a sentient supercomputer network that will rebel and destroy mankind. Then you get time travelling robots with Austrian accents, Keanu Reeves flying around everywhere - ED209 blasting the $%^ out of righteous cyborg cops on the streets of Detroit and so on. I just don't want that on my concience

joe.turion64x2
September 15th, 2007, 10:13 PM
To save the world.

Because if Micro$oft carry on the way they are going, they will end up creating a sentient supercomputer network that will rebel and destroy mankind. Then you get time travelling robots with Austrian accents, Keanu Reeves flying around everywhere - ED209 blasting the $%^ out of righteous cyborg cops on the streets of Detroit and so on. I just don't want that on my concience
I would be more concerned for my files being raped by them and then they forcing me to pay a ransom.

Joe.

lowprofile
September 15th, 2007, 11:55 PM
I recently set some apps. up on a Vista PC for my dad. It had a 90 day trial of Orifice 2007, or whatever. The only save options available in the trial version was MS own "open" document format (openable by no other application known to man or alien, not even the 'Mac that Geoff Goldblum used to give an alien computer system a virus in 'Independence Day').
I would like to propose that this marketing strategy be known henceforth as "drug dealer ware".

It might not be a reason to use Linux, but it's a good reason not to use Vista.

Peter6218
September 16th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Quite bluntly I would love to use only Linux, I've tried but inevitably end up back on Windows. The programs that are available, the support and other features far surpass the best of Linux.

just one example, try installing Java on Firefox on Feisty. Bloody nightmare !!

Windows it's a couple of mouse clicks and you're done.

Same with a whole bunch of other things.

Ran Xandros V3 for months and still ended back on WinXP. With a GOOD Firewall and Anti-virus you don't have to worry about the crud.

Yeah it's still a pain for other things but the saw off still favours Windows.

almostalive
September 16th, 2007, 04:28 AM
no strange errors, or random (and unexplained) crashes ;)

that's my favorite reason.

yowshi
September 16th, 2007, 04:36 AM
linux is -mostly- good ubuntu especially. there are a few flaws which i am sure are only flaws for newbs like me (thankfully i now have the linux bible) IE in ubuntu installing things not in the repository can be a bitch. but when you do get it you've learned something and can do the next one easier and the one after that even easier.

compared to windows , you pay big bucks and dont learn anything from the install, and then when they upgrade the software you have to pay for it all over again.

shiraj
September 16th, 2007, 05:03 AM
It would sem to me that most users would also be application developers on Linux using C,C++ and other languages. I just started with Ubuntu a couple of days ago. I am just trying to compile a very simple C program and I don't have the basic header files. Eventually someone suggested my sources.list is incomplete (i can't find build-esential on my system). Now I have been waiting but nobody has posted a good sources.list file that I could upload. One who is a beginner just feels helpless - not the best way to become a fan of Ubuntu. On Fedora I never had any such hassles.

kulturloseramerikaner
September 16th, 2007, 05:07 AM
no strange errors, or random (and unexplained) crashes ;)


I agree with that! Even something as mundane as ejecting a pen drive.
Windows:
"The device cannot be stopped now. Try stopping it later."
Wow, that's helpful. I get to spend the next 10 min sifting through the Task Manager to find out what process is still using the drive, or just yank it and spend about the time closing error boxes. Where as Linux:
"The device:
/mnt/sdb1
could not be unmounted as the following process is using it:
/brian/home/GIMP..."
OK, GIMP's still open on desktop 4, close it and I'm good. Perfect.
Another example of poor execution from M$, and another example of why computing became enjoyable again after moving to 'Nix. A lot of little things like that work my nerves in Win, the little things that remain totally overlooked.

joe.turion64x2
September 16th, 2007, 05:17 AM
I agree with that! Even something as mundane as ejecting a pen drive.
Windows:
"The device cannot be stopped now. Try stopping it later."
Wow, that's helpful. I get to spend the next 10 min sifting through the Task Manager to find out what process is still using the drive, or just yank it and spend about the time closing error boxes. Where as Linux:
"The device:
/mnt/sdb1
could not be unmounted as the following process is using it:
/brian/home/GIMP..."
OK, GIMP's still open on desktop 4, close it and I'm good. Perfect.
Another example of poor execution from M$, and another example of why computing became enjoyable again after moving to 'Nix. A lot of little things like that work my nerves in Win, the little things that remain totally overlooked.
Yes, this small things do count. For example today I had a little problem with one of my Linux systems (Debian in fact), one that is rarely used.

The problem was that I did not remember my user's password, and GDM would not allow me to log in as root. For a moment I thought the system was already screwed unless I tried some esoteric method to hack it (live cd or something), however a spark of light blinked in my head: "blessed Linux, I can always make a 'text login' by using Ctrl+F1", and that made the trick to fix everything.

Remembering the problem I wonder if it could have been so easily solved in Windows. In Windows, of course, there would not be a root password.

Joe.

yowshi
September 16th, 2007, 06:07 AM
It would sem to me that most users would also be application developers on Linux using C,C++ and other languages. I just started with Ubuntu a couple of days ago. I am just trying to compile a very simple C program and I don't have the basic header files. Eventually someone suggested my sources.list is incomplete (i can't find build-esential on my system). Now I have been waiting but nobody has posted a good sources.list file that I could upload. One who is a beginner just feels helpless - not the best way to become a fan of Ubuntu. On Fedora I never had any such hassles.

did you run a forum search or try the irc channel. though in my experience most linux irc chans are kind of hit and miss for help.

Frak
September 16th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Use Linux, BSD, and OS X together for some time and you will find that Linux, BSD, and OS X start to blend together on how they operate, while Windows starts to feel very unatural.

joe.turion64x2
September 16th, 2007, 06:22 AM
Use Linux, BSD, and OS X together for some time and you will find that Linux, BSD, and OS X start to blend together on how they operate, while Windows starts to feel very unatural.
It already happens to me that I feel like a stranger while using Windows in my laptop, somehow I feel it is not mine and want to 'leave' the system as soon as possible. On the other hand while using Windows I feel as if I am at bed and have dropped the coverlet (feel cold).

Joe.

karellen
September 16th, 2007, 07:16 AM
Linux is far more flexible and robust. plus it's an excellent opportunity to learn and it gives (me) a sense of power and control over the whole system (especially when using the cli)

Happy_Man
September 16th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Because my XP install was slow, laggy, buggy, disheveled, overworked, bloated, etc.

I would have reinstalled XP, except I had lost the disc at the time. Ironically, the day after I decided Ubuntu was the r0xx0rs, I found the XP disc. Still haven't used it, I'm gonna see whether I can set up Boot Camp on my iMac with it.

Earthwormzim
September 17th, 2007, 02:33 AM
Three reasons:

1) XMMS - the best audio player, ever.

2) Compiz Fusion - this program is absolutely INSANE! Makes XP look pre-historic, blocky, and boring as balls!

3) Gnome - the sheer configurability of Gnome blows Windows Explorer out of the water. If you look at every user's desktop in the Linux world, or even just in the Ubuntu world, you'll probably see a million completely different desktops. And I'm not talking just about the wallpaper, I'm talking about the whole shabang...menus, icons sets, wallpapers...everything! I've personally spent many, many hours just farting around with Gnome alone getting it to look just the way I want it. In Windows, however...you get to select from a wide array of...one desktop look...that is, unless you download all sorts of third party apps that screw around with system files, and what not.

And Compiz Fusion + Gnome...holy freakin' frijoles, what a combo!

Unreal223linux
September 17th, 2007, 05:03 AM
I use windows xp for the following things:

1. Compatibility. All hadware just works, all software just works. The whole OS just works. :)

2. Stability. Since SP2 XP has not crashed on me(how long has it been out? long time). I have had software crash but never the whole OS. Unlike pre xp windows doesn't crash just because a software program did. On ubuntu I had applets randomly disapering from gnome(network manager, and sound), the version of java wouldn't support my university's site(crashed firefox), oh and ubuntu displays websites really ugly(even with the upgraded widgets it just looks better on windows.)

I've given up on switching for now. Maybe once all my xp computers die and I can no longer find a copy will I start fiddling with linux again. However if vista improves on what makes xp great, I may use it.

I had hardware problems with linux that were pretty much unfixable(crap wifi reception on atheros card, suspend/hibernate on laptop lid closing just froze the computer, and my battery was going down a lot faster).

Ubuntu has lots of good software but its severely lacking in some much needed areas.(for me anyway)

Audio- Sorry but amarok doesn't even compare to WMP11, Winamp, or Itunes. It would support my files sporadically even when they were in the same format.

Office- Openoffice is ok but its just not as good as MS Office(especially for powerpoint and other stuff that requires templates and stuff. Writer is sufficient but the gramer/spell checker isn't as good). For free its great but Office 07 is just awesome(03 is good too). I just got office 07 ultimate for $60 with that recent offer for students. That isn't completely outrageous.

There were a couple of programs other programs that I didnt like as much as ttheir windows counterparts either but the above 2 just dominate my computer usage in such a drastic way. Thats basically what I do on the computer.

Oh and about viruses/spyware. I haven't gotten anything like that in probably 7 years. It just isn't an issue if you dont go unpatched and randomly running executable files.

kulturloseramerikaner
September 17th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Three reasons:

1) XMMS - the best audio player, ever.

2) Compiz Fusion - this program is absolutely INSANE! Makes XP look pre-historic, blocky, and boring as balls!

3) Gnome - the sheer configurability of Gnome blows Windows Explorer out of the water. If you look at every user's desktop in the Linux world, or even just in the Ubuntu world, you'll probably see a million completely different desktops. And I'm not talking just about the wallpaper, I'm talking about the whole shabang...menus, icons sets, wallpapers...everything! I've personally spent many, many hours just farting around with Gnome alone getting it to look just the way I want it. In Windows, however...you get to select from a wide array of...one desktop look...that is, unless you download all sorts of third party apps that screw around with system files, and what not.

And Compiz Fusion + Gnome...holy freakin' frijoles, what a combo!
Yep; XMMS kicks @$$, and I love to tweak my system(s) (I'm an engineering student, go fig.) The sheer customizability of 'Nix is so far beyond what you can do in Win...

gordonh
September 17th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Oh, and you can't minimize in fullscreen mode, which I like to do on occasion.

alt space n

Gudanov
September 17th, 2007, 09:13 PM
I have Windows XP in dual boot for some work related things and games.

I use Linux for everything else for a variety of reasons.

I like KDE better than the XP desktop. The ability to use a FTP or SSH connection like a desktop folder is fantastic. KDE has a lot more customization.

Package management. If I need a piece of software, it's just a couple of clicks and it's ready to go.

I don't have to run anti-virus software (I go without in XP because I don't use it to browse or do much of anything)

I have a MythBox and I can edit video on it from my desktop.

SSH

I don't have as many mysterious problems with applications no longer working after I install something else.

I can be copying gigabytes of data across the network, encoding video, and burning a CD in the background while using my computer to do web browsing, or word processing or any low CPU task with no noticeable slowdown.

I can keep my home directory on a separate partition and preserve all my data and settings if I want to do a clean install when upgrading.

With a pure linux machine I'd also have the advantage of not having to jump through hoops when upgrading hardware. Also I'd be able to stick a hard drive with linux install into a new machine and have everything boot up fine without the need to install a bunch of new drivers. Whenever I've tried that with Windows, I gave up and did a fresh install instead.

Windows is better at some things, it's more polished and you don't ever have to go the command line if you don't want to. There is better hardware support, but it does mean having to deal with installing drivers more often than with Linux. There is more software and the stuff you pay for is often much more polished (I wouldn't object to paying for polished software on Linux, but there isn't much). Games.

burt_57
September 17th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Same here ........... :guitar:

Baby Boy
September 18th, 2007, 07:27 AM
Surf the internet much faster with Firefox
No viruses or spyware
It runs smoothly without a hickup unlike WinXP which is ugly, slow and bloated
I can use all 64bits (without buying another OS)
Community that can help with just about anything
Everything's free
and so on and so forth...


Basically, I only use WinXP for the following:
1. Playing old RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Gothic...
2. Mobipocket Creator, a program I use to convert my pdf files to mobipocket ebook format for my PDA
3. Syncing with my PDA
4. FitDay, diet-tracking program

I expect to find a way to do 2,3 and 4 in Ubuntu soon.

ICEcoffee
September 18th, 2007, 10:03 AM
Like many posts here, I would dump Windows also in a heart beat, but not for games. Linux still doesn't have the market share which influences software production on a professional scale. I don't mean anything derogatory, but I need to use Photoshop (Gimp is not even close), Flash, video and audio editing. There is noting for Linux that compares to Premiere or Final cut pro. So I simply can't move over.

Installation is still not pain free. I am writing this via Ubuntu running in a virtual machine on Windows, because, when installed a dual boot, Ubuntu loads with very low resolution and I there are no options in the drop down bar, to change to. I suspect Ubuntu doesn't load with drivers for on-board intel graphics cards.

_Phil
September 18th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Because the Software is Open Source and i hate Microsoft ;)
Big advantage is you can customize everything you want 'cause code is open. But this is also the disadvantage; it's nothing for newbies but you can learn alot about basic things using Linux.

Cheers Phil

djchandler
September 18th, 2007, 02:24 PM
I'm not supposed to bash Windows here, so I'll take out all the really good stuff. You'll have to go to my blog for that. Since I'm not supposed to bash, this article is a lot shorter than what will soon be on my blog.

There are very few viruses in the wild to affect Linux/Unix users, and quite frankly I can't think of a one. Linux users are generally more knowledgeable about their own computers' operating environments, and take measures to guard against intrusion of any sort. The firewall is up by default after installation in Ubuntu, as well as many of us are behind the NAT firewalls built into routers. There's not a target painted on our backs because of the lack of precautions or knowledge. I'm almost paranoid about it.

We're not abused by script-kiddies that know Windows, because that's what their parents provide for them. We're not harassed by adware, spyware, botware, trojans, and browser hijackers, because our numbers are too small and disparate to be worth the time of the stuff that bombard Windows' users.

When we install applications, like media players and pdf viewers and other useful software, they do not try to steal processor time and ram at boot-up so they supposedly load faster when they are needed. Now that's a joke! I can't see any difference. Maybe if you have a sslower cpu and/or hard drive you could. Finally, it's amazing how arrogant some Windows software vendors are, as if their software is the only thing that's ever going to run on you computer(s).

It's just one irritant after another with Windows, so general internet access is the main reason I use Linux, and secondarily is the fact that there's no need to use Windows for everyday, run-of-the-mill tasks that nearly all computer users do. It's an added layer of protection against a multitude of plagues and invaders.

The only reason I MUST run Windows XP at all is the necessity of using Adobe products to fulfill my customers' requests. If it was not for that, and my customers would accept my true end product, Windows would be gone. I do not dual-boot, by the way. Windows is segregated, just like a quarantined patient with an incurable disease is in a hospital. I don't get infected with viruses or bots, or anything else on the XP box, and take diligent counter-measures, but you never know. I do take business email from my clients on it.

DJ

NightCrawler03X
September 18th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Not having something that reminds me of a fat, sweaty man who believes in digital imprisonment, is more than enough to me.

I refer of course to Steve Ballmer.

wmikes
September 19th, 2007, 03:06 AM
cuz i hate bill gates!

Caffeine_Junky
September 19th, 2007, 03:32 AM
I just like messing around with PC's :P ...and free live cd's allow me to do all the exploring I want too...

...yeah I still have XP, and always will have because my copy of "Xp Pro SP1" is all I need from Microsoft.

I will handle security and hardware support myself. I have no need for SP2 and all the updates.

....besides, my main priority now is to learn linux and become good at handling it. I love the freedom of linux, and debian/Ubuntu is really easy to handle, even for a newb like me. It's a sweet learning-curve.

:popcorn:

Unreal223linux
September 19th, 2007, 06:43 AM
Malware isn't as big of an issue as some of you are making it out to be.
If you can learn to use linux surely you can remember to update windows and not download stuff from malicious sites. Yeah it would be great if the problem didn't exist but its a little late for that i think. :P

To me its not enough of a hassle to make me want to deal with the hassle that I had with linux.(terrible hardware support and lacking quality of a few essential programs)

The thing that I liked about linux was that it was all free. It was nice to be able to just go in a menu and install lots of great software and not worry about taking out my credit card. But to be honest most of the free software I was using in linux I was finding just as good if not the same free stuff for windows. I just dont have to deal with stuff not working.

Also, I dont get why you would hate bill gates. Its true that MS has done some shady stuff in the past but now he is like the #1 humanitarian in the world. Cant hate a guy who is saving peoples lives. :)

jabowman78
September 19th, 2007, 09:07 PM
Basically, because it rocks.

-Ubuntu doesn't ask you to prove that you are rightfully using the OS
-A great community that makes jumping into Linux-land that much easier
-There isn't much that isn't touched upon already in this post! :)

Of course, I'll be keeping ye olde XP around for a while, but it will have a very limited presence in my next build.

Naikei
September 20th, 2007, 02:05 PM
When you have more then 10 pieces of software installed, it doesn't feel like a brick when you start up... Windows owns the gaming market at the moment, so XP is always loitering on my system, like a "hoodie" in a shopping mall :(.

yowshi
September 20th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Malware isn't as big of an issue as some of you are making it out to be.
If you can learn to use linux surely you can remember to update windows and not download stuff from malicious sites. Yeah it would be great if the problem didn't exist but its a little late for that i think. :P
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
most MS boxes get infected on thier way to thier first update from MS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me its not enough of a hassle to make me want to deal with the hassle that I had with linux.(terrible hardware support and lacking quality of a few essential programs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
check out ati they are now writing drivers for linux and helping the foss community by doing so
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that I liked about linux was that it was all free. It was nice to be able to just go in a menu and install lots of great software and not worry about taking out my credit card. But to be honest most of the free software I was using in linux I was finding just as good if not the same free stuff for windows. I just dont have to deal with stuff not working.

Also, I dont get why you would hate bill gates. Its true that MS has done some shady stuff in the past but now he is like the #1 humanitarian in the world. Cant hate a guy who is saving peoples lives. :)
so a little generosity does in fact hide a multitude of sin. and bill may be going humanitarian but MS is still trying to get it's monopoly. pray it never does because monopolies are bad for the end user.

tyggna1
September 20th, 2007, 02:15 PM
I have windows--just in case, on my wife's computer. I primarily use it to make wine a little more compatible with a few games.
To my everlasting joy, I haven't had to boot into windows in over a month. I use Linux to actually use my computer.

ExSuSEusr
September 20th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Why I use Linux over Windows:


I don't think I should have to pay hundreds of dollars to be the beta tester of a multi-billion dollar company because they're too cheap to do the job right BEFORE release.
No viruses, spyware or other malicious programs.
A great deal more stability and configurablity.
Gnome makes XP look like Pong.
Hardware issues are becoming less and less of an issue as vendors are starting to realize how much of the market share they are missing out on by not catering to our needs.
With a little configuration you can get pretty much any popular game to work in Linux (Everquest 2 notwithstanding).
It's free.
99% of the software packages are free.
The support is exponentially better than MS's support.

Unreal223linux
September 20th, 2007, 03:43 PM
so a little generosity does in fact hide a multitude of sin. and bill may be going humanitarian but MS is still trying to get it's monopoly. pray it never does because monopolies are bad for the end user.

Multitude of sin?
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't done monopolistic things or whatever but I also dont think they have done anything so bad that the fact that he is literally saving millions of people doesn't out weigh the "bad" things that he has done.

What exactly do you think he did that was so horrible? Personally I think a lot of the stuff brought up against microsoft is bunk. Especially since their are other companies(apple) doing the exact same thing unquestioned but because they arent as popular no one cares.

TenPlus1
September 20th, 2007, 03:51 PM
my simple answer is... Ubuntu runs faster, safer, using less memory and has all the programs I need and none of the **** like WGA and Windows-Updates, Viruses and Spyware etc.

yowshi
September 20th, 2007, 03:55 PM
by popular you mean as sucessful at it. if apple were having the same success rate at making itself a monopoly i would say the exact same thing. but the truth is it isnt, even though it is trying. as for what MS has done to deserve my enemity? it's not so much microsoft but the mind set of microsoft which is something to the tune of "if we can buy off the right people and yell loud enough with the right adverts we can sell **** and tell the customers the bad smell is actually a feature" they make a new version of thier stuff almost every year (not windows but everything else used on it) and expect you to pay hundreds of bucks to get the upgrades for all that software. and if that werent enough the software requires endless patching or is buggy and crashes often.

Officer Dibble
September 20th, 2007, 03:59 PM
At one time in China, people all had to were the same clothes and live in similar ways, this was all imposed. In the the world of computing, Microsoft has held back innovation through its tactics of pushing in our faces mediocre software that we not only have to pay over the odds for but also have to be unpaid testers too.

The companies we work for pay oodles of money in licensing, etc, that money could be going into your salary.

I want all that is on my computer to be mine... I don't want to lease/rent (licence) my OS from anyone... which is what Windows users are obliged to do.

It's more than just looks my friend, but Linux really does look at whole lot better too. :)

ExSuSEusr
September 20th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Multitude of sin?
I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't done monopolistic things or whatever but I also dont think they have done anything so bad that the fact that he is literally saving millions of people doesn't out weigh the "bad" things that he has done.

What exactly do you think he did that was so horrible? Personally I think a lot of the stuff brought up against microsoft is bunk. Especially since their are other companies(apple) doing the exact same thing unquestioned but because they arent as popular no one cares.

Outsourcing comes to mind. Laying off thousands of American tech support workers to increase the bottom line. The company wasn't facing bankruptcy (by any means) by paying a higher wage to Americans.

Let's not forget the threats of law suites and other devious acts of disguised intimidation to thwart the growing popularity of Linux.

A lot people seem to forget that the products we get - the applications we use - are buy and large written by people who love Linux, who are fueled by a passion for what they're doing. Compare this to a product that's be written by folks who only did so because their paycheck required it of them. There's a BIG difference. I'm not saying that you can't be passionate about your work, nor am I saying that an employee can't create a very quality software application - just saying in general - you're more likely to get something more solid from someone who wrote the app out of a love for the work as opposed to someone who wrote it because the boss told them to. If you get my point.

Secondly, a lot of people are talking about the difficulty in gaming. Linux has come a LONG way in this department. Wine has evolved a great deal. A lot of games are now more Linux friendly than in they were in the past. You also have a slew of applications to use... Crossover Office, Cedaga (sp) both come to mind. Really - and I am not saying this to mean - but if you really want your games to work in Linux - you can do it - it just takes a little effort, question asking and reading.

Therein lies my gripe with the average Windows user. People by and large are... well... lazy by nature. They'd rather fork out 400 dollars for something and deal with the headaches than to spend some time reading and learning about something new...

Ubuntu is extremely easy to install. Setting everything up might take a little more work. But, such is not out of reach of the average computer user. The question of whether they're willing to forego reading the latest Hollywood gossip site, for a night, and read a How To to get their device, program, game working - well - that's another issue all together. Most people aren't.

Just MY opinion though.

Frak
September 20th, 2007, 09:52 PM
so a little generosity does in fact hide a multitude of sin. and bill may be going humanitarian but MS is still trying to get it's monopoly. pray it never does because monopolies are bad for the end user.
They already are.

linuxisgod
September 20th, 2007, 10:04 PM
Think about it about 80-90% use windows and that small 10-20% use linux or some other os now all virus are mainly made for windows cuz they have the largest amount of users so think about it its free it works a hell alot faster then windows and u run into virus like 1 time in a 999999999999999999999999999 life span and one more thing i can leave my cpu on all day long and not have 2 restart because it dont slow down and dont try to say that it is my cpu cuz i have 4 ddr2 memory chips 1 tb hdd and i have double duo core processor so my sh*t runs 1 millions times faster then when i use windows and windows sucks f*ck em http://ubuntuforums.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

bwallum
September 20th, 2007, 10:17 PM
Yo! ol timer! I can say that that cos I'm 57 years old too!

Have you found the index.dat file on your XP system yet. Have a good look at it. Note that such data as account numbers, passwords etc show up on every single web access you make. If you can't find it download and install Regseeker from

http://www.hoverdesk.net/freeware.htm

Then think about what other stuff MS have on you and how they don't like anybody else knowing their code.

Then think about supporting the open source folk, like Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird etc, etc.

Then think about how MS wants to charge you lots of money to upgrade and how they just love to make a criminal out of you if you don't pay them. think about the free use you get with open source software.

Then spare a thought for the progress of humanity, how contributing to a common cause can motivate us to do our best with a limited life.

If the high level stuff doesn't move you then just think about the control you have over your operating system, the freedom to do just what you want with it and have a lot of fun do 'real' computing.

If you are challenged with the sheer breadth of Linux then just do what you are doing, ask these forums what you need to know. They respond, very quickly, freely and with a friendly smile. When was the last time you did the same with MS support? Oh, and the updates; have you noticed the huge volume of MS updates? Linux has them but they are fewer because Linux is inherently safer.

I was a dyed in the wool MS man. I only use it now for MS Office access, thats purely for historical reasons. My windows PC grows cobwebs between uses.

I also like Mahjongg...

Kind Regards
Bob

Kedster
September 21st, 2007, 02:00 AM
lol i love it its like a poem and it perfectly decribs ms i love the dyed in the wool of ms part its cool verry deep

Unreal223linux
September 21st, 2007, 02:02 AM
Outsourcing comes to mind. Laying off thousands of American tech support workers to increase the bottom line. The company wasn't facing bankruptcy (by any means) by paying a higher wage to Americans.
Yeah that does suck. Lots of other tech companies(especially pc manufactorers) have done this.



Let's not forget the threats of law suites and other devious acts of disguised intimidation to thwart the growing popularity of Linux.

I'll agree on this one. That does suck.



A lot people seem to forget that the products we get - the applications we use - are buy and large written by people who love Linux, who are fueled by a passion for what they're doing. Compare this to a product that's be written by folks who only did so because their paycheck required it of them. There's a BIG difference. I'm not saying that you can't be passionate about your work, nor am I saying that an employee can't create a very quality software application - just saying in general - you're more likely to get something more solid from someone who wrote the app out of a love for the work as opposed to someone who wrote it because the boss told them to. If you get my point.

Sorry but I think thats bull. Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, ect, ect are the best of their field and are supported by major corporations. With opensource software your more likely to get something thats buggy or in perpetual beta.



Therein lies my gripe with the average Windows user. People by and large are... well... lazy by nature. They'd rather fork out 400 dollars for something and deal with the headaches than to spend some time reading and learning about something new...

Thats a cop out. I spent like 12 hours trying to get my sound working(which I managed to do and wrote a faq on here to help others). Then I spent another maybe 5 trying to get decent wifi connections working and it did for about a day and never again. If things just do not work reasonably you cant expect someone to spend obscene amounts of time trying to get it too when they could just pop in a windows disc and have everything up and running automatically.(yes sometimes you need to download drivers in windows too but windows will tell you too and you just click on a .exe and problem solved. Not so on linux)

I spent more time than I should have trying to make the switch when I realized that it just wasn't worth it. Windows just works and does what its supposed to do.

Unreal223linux
September 21st, 2007, 02:15 AM
Yo! ol timer! I can say that that cos I'm 57 years old too!

Have you found the index.dat file on your XP system yet. Have a good look at it. Note that such data as account numbers, passwords etc show up on every single web access you make. If you can't find it download and install Regseeker from

http://www.hoverdesk.net/freeware.htm

Then think about what other stuff MS have on you and how they don't like anybody else knowing their code.

Then think about supporting the open source folk, like Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird etc, etc.

Then think about how MS wants to charge you lots of money to upgrade and how they just love to make a criminal out of you if you don't pay them. think about the free use you get with open source software.

Then spare a thought for the progress of humanity, how contributing to a common cause can motivate us to do our best with a limited life.

If the high level stuff doesn't move you then just think about the control you have over your operating system, the freedom to do just what you want with it and have a lot of fun do 'real' computing.

If you are challenged with the sheer breadth of Linux then just do what you are doing, ask these forums what you need to know. They respond, very quickly, freely and with a friendly smile. When was the last time you did the same with MS support? Oh, and the updates; have you noticed the huge volume of MS updates? Linux has them but they are fewer because Linux is inherently safer.

I was a dyed in the wool MS man. I only use it now for MS Office access, thats purely for historical reasons. My windows PC grows cobwebs between uses.

I also like Mahjongg...

Kind Regards
Bob

I'm pretty sure index.dat only stores info from IE(I use opera) and it doesn't store passwords. Only URLs.
To be honest I've never checked them but I do use a program called ccleaner to clean them up(requires a reboot.)

As far as doing "real computing" with linux that I cant do with MS... sorry but I did pretty much the same things for the week or two that I used linux. Just with less polished software and bad hardware support. :P I'm one of those people that use my computer to surf, listen to music, do school/business work, and work on a website or two. I dont play games, fiddle around with settings, ect. I set things up the way I want and thats it.

dresman
September 21st, 2007, 02:18 AM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called
you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org
use wine to play windows games.its easy on ubuntu.

Sayers
September 21st, 2007, 02:22 AM
Once you use your computer for more than internet you become addicted to linux.

FriedChips
September 21st, 2007, 02:25 AM
just don't want to donate a dime to bill gates' fund.... not that I ever paid for windoze but with linux I don't have to pay anything and I'm not even a theif for it! I feel like a new man. Plus I just like to tinker alot.

yowshi
September 21st, 2007, 03:00 AM
it's been said time and again and i think i agree linux needs a one file install and althought .deb's do fit the bill not everything actually comes in a deb file and even with debs you have dependency problems, a problem i have encountered quite a bit

Frak
September 21st, 2007, 03:09 AM
it's been said time and again and i think i agree linux needs a one file install and althought .deb's do fit the bill not everything actually comes in a deb file and even with debs you have dependency problems, a problem i have encountered quite a bit
99.999% of the time, the dependencies are automatically installed.

yowshi
September 21st, 2007, 03:15 AM
only if your install from the repository of your *nix system. otherwise you have to manually install the dependencies and it aint as straight forward as apt-get "name of library needed" since most of those files are part of a package and you have to figure otu which one

Unreal223linux
September 21st, 2007, 03:16 AM
You just reminded me of the other thing I hated about linux.
Unless you want to manually compile(which is confusing and a pain) things you have to wait untill its added to the repositories to get updated. If a new version of openoffice(if I used openoffice. :P) was released in windows I could get it in about 20 minutes(just wait for it to download and click the .exe). On linux I have to wait for the whole freakin OS to be updated because that seems to be the only tme its updated. They seem a little better with firefox but I still am not getting the updates as fast.

I tried .debs a couple of times and it seemed to work. One of the programs wouldn't work though...

Frak
September 21st, 2007, 03:20 AM
Bleh, go to the programming forum and ask somebody to create an updated package, somebody will do it.

yowshi
September 21st, 2007, 03:20 AM
yeah it can be a pain though i dont see what the real hassle of make and make install in a terminal is. i personally dont mind it just half the time when i installed software like that some dependency is missing

Frak
September 21st, 2007, 03:26 AM
If your looking for the latest, wouldn't you be using Sidux, Gentoo, or Arch?