Linux verses Windows Vista

[vistaakah]

First of all let me state that i experimented with Linux over 10 years ago when Mandrake was about a co-equal ratings wise with Red Hat. In that 10 years or so , yes things have improved but i have to be a programmer just to get an Air card 875U to even work in Ubuntu. The OS in general is not very informative or intuitive. This is a personal opinion and not a flame to users.

For me to take major interest in something new and improved, it's going to have to do something better then what i currently operate. Guess what Linux to the intelligent Windows Vista user does nothing better. I got on the INTERNET in 1990 or so and in over 18 years of active surfing I've NEVER had a virus that wasn't caught. Is that the status quo? Not at all but a point that or attentive users. Linux is really no safer then windows. Linux is only safer because of simple lack of users. If Linux had the amount of users windows had then Linux would have just as many security holes/breeches.

I wish and hope that somebody comes along and at least provides fierce competition to Mr. Gates but currently nobody does as of yet. For reference sake i built a new PC just for Windows Vista. No problems at all with stability. This falls into the anti upgrade mentality that I've seen since dos 2.0 lol. Do i like some of the things MS does. NOPE but its still the best OS in the world namely Vista. Using the excuse of running and old system on Linux because its less system demanding is again just an excuse to claim one is better then the other.

Free Stuff? Who doesn't want it but again much open source software is second rate to stuff built for Windows. I try and will continue to try open source software to hopefully find something free and better then windows made software. *note* .. There is no real benefit performance wise to run Fire fox over IE. Its in fact slower then IE currently.

Like i said in order for me to replace something it's going to have to do the job better then what i currently have *Windows Vista Home* and right now nothing out there does. Keep chugging Ubuntu.. I would love to see somebody meet or unseat Wild Bill Gates and MS one day. Competition is good but don't limit your market to only a few.

Take Care

[Sef]

Moved to recurring discussions. Repetitive agruments that have been talked about or refuted before.

[kamaboko]

Well how about that. A topic about "Linux vs. Vista". Can you imagine that.

Thank you mod for moving this topic to the "repetitive and done to death" chamber.

[JeffoOfMetal]

Linux is really no safer then windows. Linux is only safer because of simple lack of users. If Linux had the amount of users windows had then Linux would have just as many security holes/breeches.

Dude, it's not just because there are so few users that Linux is more secure. The operating system is just built better.

...still the best OS in the world namely Vista.

Wrong!

There is no real benefit performance wise to run Fire fox over IE. Its in fact slower then IE currently.

That can't possibly be true, but even if it is, you know that IE is a terribly unstable and insecure browser.

[popch]

Well how about that. A topic about "Linux vs. Vista". Can you imagine that.

Thank you mod for moving this topic to the "repetitive and done to death" chamber.

And a maiden post, too.

[jrusso2]

So many holes in his argument I am not even going to address them.

I just want to say that if you would stick with it and be diligent and willing to learn you would find the reason so many people love Linux.

[vistaakah]

Well i guess i should of added that I'm a hardcore online gamer.. That shoots Linux in the foot as well. Claims of better security? I wont dispute that fact but for the average user its insignificant.

Server and Desktop are not in the same league.. I was using Ubuntu desktop as a comparison. I guess a Linux distro has to decide on its target market. The hardware and software market evolves around windows users and that won't ever change.

I guess thats the big difference. Using something that pretty much works out of the box and having to make something work. People don't want to have to program there PC to get a wireless aircard or printer to work. They want to plug it in and go something thats not always common with Linux.

With that being said i will continue to play with Linux Distro's because I'm a computer junkie ..It's really not about what it takes to learn to use with me its simply about what works better. I use alot of open source apps with Vista but most apps look dated to me. Ask yourself this question. If people had to pay for Linux how many people would use it outside of the professional server types that have been using Unix based OSes for years.

[juxtaposed]

Claims of better security? I wont dispute that fact but for the average user its insignificant.

Oh, so the average user doesn't care if they get spyware and it records their bank account details? Interesting :)

[PmDematagoda]

Well i guess i should of added that I'm a hardcore online gamer.. That shoots Linux in the foot as well. Claims of better security? I wont dispute that fact but for the average user its insignificant.
It may not be significant right now for the average user but with the rate at which malware is increasing and mutating this will soon become an issue even for the average users.

Server and Desktop are not in the same league.. I was using Ubuntu desktop as a comparison. I guess a Linux distro has to decide on its target market. The hardware and software market evolves around windows users and that won't ever change.
True, but there are distros such as Ubuntu, OpenSuSE and even Fedora that are starting to be viable competitors, especially Ubuntu.

I guess thats the big difference. Using something that pretty much works out of the box and having to make something work. People don't want to have to program there PC to get a wireless aircard or printer to work. They want to plug it in and go something thats not always common with Linux.
That mostly is a question with hardware itself these days, for example my PC took Linux really well and I did not have to do anything at all. The main reason this happens is due to vendor lock-in where certain(many) manufacturers are unwilling to publish the specifications of their products or to provide a Linux driver or software themselves, or they may provide a Linux driver or software but it may be poorly made compared to the Windows version and would be rather difficult for the Linux beginner.

With that being said i will continue to play with Linux Distro's because I'm a computer junkie ..It's really not about what it takes to learn to use with me its simply about what works better. I use alot of open source apps with Vista but most apps look dated to me. Ask yourself this question. If people had to pay for Linux how many people would use it outside of the professional server types that have been using Unix based OSes for years.

In my opinion Linux does exactly what I want it to do at no cost and at the benefit of giving me the freedom to do whatever I want, you cannot easily get this on Windows where you have to pay even to do the simplest and most basic of tasks such as surfing the internet or checking your e-mail. Keep in mind that Vista costs about 100$ or more, so is it really worth it to pay all that money(not mentioning the PC itself) in order to carry out just the simple tasks?

[rasmus91]

Good point there PmDematagoda... 100$ for Vista, i think thats pretty cheap for a malware magnet like IE... if you're studying malware that is...

[original_jamingrit]

I'm sure the OP wasn't trying to be a troll, he/she was just trying to enlighten us.

[quinnten83]

First of all let me state that i experimented with Linux over 10 years ago when Mandrake was about a co-equal ratings wise with Red Hat. In that 10 years or so , yes things have improved but i have to be a programmer just to get an Air card 875U to even work in Ubuntu. The OS in general is not very informative or intuitive. This is a personal opinion and not a flame to users.

For me to take major interest in something new and improved, it's going to have to do something better then what i currently operate. Guess what Linux to the intelligent Windows Vista user does nothing better. I got on the INTERNET in 1990 or so and in over 18 years of active surfing I've NEVER had a virus that wasn't caught. Is that the status quo? Not at all but a point that or attentive users. Linux is really no safer then windows. Linux is only safer because of simple lack of users. If Linux had the amount of users windows had then Linux would have just as many security holes/breeches.

I wish and hope that somebody comes along and at least provides fierce competition to Mr. Gates but currently nobody does as of yet. For reference sake i built a new PC just for Windows Vista. No problems at all with stability. This falls into the anti upgrade mentality that I've seen since dos 2.0 lol. Do i like some of the things MS does. NOPE but its still the best OS in the world namely Vista. Using the excuse of running and old system on Linux because its less system demanding is again just an excuse to claim one is better then the other.

Free Stuff? Who doesn't want it but again much open source software is second rate to stuff built for Windows. I try and will continue to try open source software to hopefully find something free and better then windows made software. *note* .. There is no real benefit performance wise to run Fire fox over IE. Its in fact slower then IE currently.

Like i said in order for me to replace something it's going to have to do the job better then what i currently have *Windows Vista Home* and right now nothing out there does. Keep chugging Ubuntu.. I would love to see somebody meet or unseat Wild Bill Gates and MS one day. Competition is good but don't limit your market to only a few.

Take Care
Actually, I personally rather have you stick to windows and never come around here again. Just personal opinion. It's clear you found that which you like and coming into a linux forum to tell them that their product is inferior because it is not your product, borders on the insulting and flamebaity.
So i feel you shoudl stay away and only return untill you can judge gnu/linux on it's own merrits, rather than being vista.

[mdsmedia]

Personally I think the OP is rather selfish. "I'll come back when your product, which I can get for free, is equal to the product I use, which I pay good money for".

I use Linux because I prefer it to Windows. I dual-boot with XP because I have some software I have to use.

I have Office but I use OpenOffice because it promotes the use of OSS. AND I can update it to my heart's content when there's an update for it, rather than buy Office 2007 because it has something 2003 doesn't have.

I can also upgrade my Linux distro to my heart's content, rather than buy Vista because it has something XP doesn't have.

As for being more secure, I won't bother except to say that Linux has the majority of web servers and STILL doesn't have the exploits that Windows has. Windows machines CREATE problems for Linux users in the form of spam. Please don't use the market share old wives tale excuse.

And back to being rather selfish. If you KEEP using the Windows hardware and software, waiting for Linux to catch up, why should any of the developers make anything available for Linux? I've heard this excuse before.

[futureproof]

I think the OP does have a point with saying for people to change to something new it must do something better than what you're using now.

For an average user I don't think they would see linux as doing anything better than windows, if they have decent hardware and have never had a security issue I really can't think of anything that would be percepably better. There may be technical things that could be considered better but I don't know how they would be seen.

As for an average user being told they would have to possibly mess around to get some of their hardware working, that would be a put off right there I think, drivers for windows are easily found if theyre not supplied on disk.

In the end though it's all about user choice, when they go to a store and see a computer with familiar windows and applications they immediately feel comfortable with it and so the cycle repeats. Getting people to try something new is a really hard thing to do, especially when it means they have to put effort in just to be able to do the same things as they could be doing without putting in that effort.

There has to be a compelling reason for people to switch and I can't see it in linux. Sure I use it myself but I'm not an average user. There's just nothing on the surface that sets it apart from windows or mac.

[athaki]

I've tried windows vista, and it was okay for a few months but I sure did miss being able to boot quickly (avg boot time ~4 mins) though my computer could have been considered "premium ready" by their standards. That was about my only gripe with Vista, oh yeah and the ridiculous end-user agreement; loved the line that said if you accept you relenquish your rights to use all previous versions of windows. HAH! Like they could stop me if I wanted to use their trash. I have a clean conscience when I'm using Ubuntu becuase I don't feel like I'm being molested by my os.

[futureproof]

For some reason my vista started taking minutes to start up, i found that reinstalling the HD controllers fixed that right up. Did you read the Eula?
I thought it was just there to fill blocks on the DVD

[akiratheoni]

First of all let me state that i experimented with Linux over 10 years ago when Mandrake was about a co-equal ratings wise with Red Hat. In that 10 years or so , yes things have improved but i have to be a programmer just to get an Air card 875U to even work in Ubuntu. The OS in general is not very informative or intuitive. This is a personal opinion and not a flame to users.

For me to take major interest in something new and improved, it's going to have to do something better then what i currently operate. Guess what Linux to the intelligent Windows Vista user does nothing better. I got on the INTERNET in 1990 or so and in over 18 years of active surfing I've NEVER had a virus that wasn't caught. Is that the status quo? Not at all but a point that or attentive users. Linux is really no safer then windows. Linux is only safer because of simple lack of users. If Linux had the amount of users windows had then Linux would have just as many security holes/breeches.

I wish and hope that somebody comes along and at least provides fierce competition to Mr. Gates but currently nobody does as of yet. For reference sake i built a new PC just for Windows Vista. No problems at all with stability. This falls into the anti upgrade mentality that I've seen since dos 2.0 lol. Do i like some of the things MS does. NOPE but its still the best OS in the world namely Vista. Using the excuse of running and old system on Linux because its less system demanding is again just an excuse to claim one is better then the other.

Free Stuff? Who doesn't want it but again much open source software is second rate to stuff built for Windows. I try and will continue to try open source software to hopefully find something free and better then windows made software. *note* .. There is no real benefit performance wise to run Fire fox over IE. Its in fact slower then IE currently.

Like i said in order for me to replace something it's going to have to do the job better then what i currently have *Windows Vista Home* and right now nothing out there does. Keep chugging Ubuntu.. I would love to see somebody meet or unseat Wild Bill Gates and MS one day. Competition is good but don't limit your market to only a few.

Take Care

facepalm.jpg

Before you spew your ignorance to those who are more intelligent in Linux than you are, do some research. You obviously do not know any more about FOSS than my mother does, and she is computer illiterate.

I don't even feel a need to justify myself, considering your name is 'vistaakah'.

I'm not saying this on the sake of Ubuntu only. Ignorance is the bane of everyone's existence and people like you who read a Wikipedia page and believe that you're an expert on the subject only hurt others. Please, leave, and don't come back here.

With that being said i will continue to play with Linux Distro's because I'm a computer junkie

Oh god, don't do that. Please. You'll only make things worse for yourself. Stick to Windows. Don't try Linux at all. You don't understand it in the least bit.

I realize that this is a very mean post but it is obvious this person is not looking for enlightenment; rather, he is just trolling and so I feel the need to spill my heart out to someone who isn't going to listen anyway.

[mdsmedia]

I think the OP does have a point with saying for people to change to something new it must do something better than what you're using now.

For an average user I don't think they would see linux as doing anything better than windows, if they have decent hardware and have never had a security issue I really can't think of anything that would be percepably better. There may be technical things that could be considered better but I don't know how they would be seen.

As for an average user being told they would have to possibly mess around to get some of their hardware working, that would be a put off right there I think, drivers for windows are easily found if theyre not supplied on disk.

In the end though it's all about user choice, when they go to a store and see a computer with familiar windows and applications they immediately feel comfortable with it and so the cycle repeats. Getting people to try something new is a really hard thing to do, especially when it means they have to put effort in just to be able to do the same things as they could be doing without putting in that effort.

There has to be a compelling reason for people to switch and I can't see it in linux. Sure I use it myself but I'm not an average user. There's just nothing on the surface that sets it apart from windows or mac.I'm an average user. Maybe an intermediate user, but not an IT pro or even really a hobbyist.

If you close your mind, on the surface, a compelling reason to use a Free Linux rather than an expensive alternative may elude you.

I find compelling reasons to use Linux every time I use Windows, as well as compelling reasons not to use Windows. One being the Freedom I have to use whichever distro, window manager, theme, I WANT TO. Without having to pay for something just to see if it's what I want or to upgrade something I've already paid for. I'm not saying it's about the money. It's about the freedom. To me, that's compelling, and if anyone wants to continue to use Windows, because it's what they're comfortable with, they're working to lock themselves in, continuously. The communists of the USSR were the same, and then they saw the light and are going through some pain. With a little luck they'll come out the other end in a much better situation. The closed minded ones only thought about tomorrow, or today.

As for having drivers readily available for hardware on Windows, have you never had trouble even installing hardware despite having the drivers readily available. Having Windows treating me like an idiot while it stuffs around telling me why it can't do something is my idea of a compelling reason, having experienced the alternative.

[futureproof]

I'm an average user. Maybe an intermediate user, but not an IT pro or even really a hobbyist.

If you close your mind you don't see, on the surface, a compelling reason to use a Free Linux rather than an expensive alternative may elude you.

I find compelling reasons to use Linux every time I use Windows, as well as compelling reasons not to use Windows. One being the Feedom I have to use whichever distro, window manager, theme, I WANT TO. Without having to pay for something just to see if it's what I want or to upgrade something I've already paid for. I'm not saying it's about the money. It's about the freedom. To me, that's compelling, and if anyone wants to continue to use Windows, because it's what they're comfortable with, they're working to lock themselves in, continuously. The communists of the USSR were the same, and then they saw the light and are going through some pain. With a little luck they'll come out the other end in a much better situation. The closed minded ones only thought about tomorrow, or today.

As for having drivers readily available for hardware on Windows, have you never had trouble even installing hardware despite having the drivers readily available. Having Windows treating me like an idiot while it stuffs around telling me why it can't do something is my idea of a compelling reason, having experienced the alternative.



Ive never had a problem with hardware, ever. this freedom of choice you talk about seems to extend only to choosing things other than windows, it's ok for people to choose windows because it meets their need isnt it?

[billgoldberg]

First of all let me state that i experimented with Linux over 10 years ago when Mandrake was about a co-equal ratings wise with Red Hat. In that 10 years or so , yes things have improved but i have to be a programmer just to get an Air card 875U to even work in Ubuntu. The OS in general is not very informative or intuitive. This is a personal opinion and not a flame to users.

For me to take major interest in something new and improved, it's going to have to do something better then what i currently operate. Guess what Linux to the intelligent Windows Vista user does nothing better. I got on the INTERNET in 1990 or so and in over 18 years of active surfing I've NEVER had a virus that wasn't caught. Is that the status quo? Not at all but a point that or attentive users. Linux is really no safer then windows. Linux is only safer because of simple lack of users. If Linux had the amount of users windows had then Linux would have just as many security holes/breeches.

I wish and hope that somebody comes along and at least provides fierce competition to Mr. Gates but currently nobody does as of yet. For reference sake i built a new PC just for Windows Vista. No problems at all with stability. This falls into the anti upgrade mentality that I've seen since dos 2.0 lol. Do i like some of the things MS does. NOPE but its still the best OS in the world namely Vista. Using the excuse of running and old system on Linux because its less system demanding is again just an excuse to claim one is better then the other.

Free Stuff? Who doesn't want it but again much open source software is second rate to stuff built for Windows. I try and will continue to try open source software to hopefully find something free and better then windows made software. *note* .. There is no real benefit performance wise to run Fire fox over IE. Its in fact slower then IE currently.

Like i said in order for me to replace something it's going to have to do the job better then what i currently have *Windows Vista Home* and right now nothing out there does. Keep chugging Ubuntu.. I would love to see somebody meet or unseat Wild Bill Gates and MS one day. Competition is good but don't limit your market to only a few.

Take Care

http://zip.4chan.org/g/src/1205052438045.jpg

[mdsmedia]

Ive never had a problem with hardware, ever. this freedom of choice you talk about seems to extend only to choosing things other than windows, it's ok for people to choose windows because it meets their need isnt it?You've never had a problem installing a driver for hardware on Windows?

I'm not saying, in the end, the hardware can't be installed. I never said that. What I AM saying is that it's not always a simple installation.

You were talking about how difficult it CAN be to install or configure Linux. All I was saying is it's not always just a simple matter of plug and play in Windows either.

You also seem determined to gloss over my whole 3rd paragraph. No I'm NOT talking about choosing things other than Windows. What I am saying is that ONCE you "choose" Windows your Freedom is very much limited.

If Windows meets people's needs, sure, it's ok for them to choose it. I find that Linux doesn't fully meet my needs SIMPLY because some software I'm required to use is Windows ONLY. So, by "choosing" to use Windows others are helping to reduce my choice.

People use Windows because Windows is what people use. It's a vicious circle, and I don't blame Windows users for that. But simply using Windows because that's what people use is the reason some tools, games etc. are only available for Windows. That's not a fault of Linux. Continue to perpetuate this and it only serves to reduce choice for users. Ignore it because that's what's comfortable for you and you are part of the problem.

I can respect that people use Windows because it's what does what they want, but for those who know better, you being one of them, simply using Windows because that's what does the job is part of the problem.

People like you selfishly use whatever does the job now, without a thought for how it affects YOU in the future. You're happy to use open source programs if they suit you, but forget what goes into those open source tools and WHY the open source tools are developed.

I have Windows XP Professional dual-booting on this machine, and XP Home on my Desktop. Each defaults to Ubuntu Linux and Windows is ONLY used when the software or tool I need is ONLY available on Windows. I have Office installed in Windows ONLY because some software ONLY exports to Excel.

That software ONLY exports to Excel because the developers of that software believe that everyone has Office. It's ubiquitous, so in a way we're forced to have it. The same can be said of Windows.

I'm a tax accountant, in Australia, and my software, ALL tax software, runs ONLY on Windows....so we're forced to use Windows. Everyone uses Windows, so everyone uses Windows. Even access to the Tax Agent's Portal on our Tax Office website is restricted to Windows, because the digital certificates used only install on Windows. A fault of MS or Windows? No. A fault of Linux? No. A problem of ubiquity? A problem of monopoly? Most certainly. People use Windows because people use Windows.

I CHOOSE Linux because it's nicer than WIndows. It doesn't nag me. It doesn't tell me every time it does something it should do anyway. It doesn't self-promote. It just works. It aint perfect, but neither is Windows. Both are a long way from perfect, but from my point of view, Linux is much closer than Windows.

[futureproof]

You've never had a problem installing a driver for hardware on Windows?
I'm not saying, in the end, the hardware can't be installed. I never said that. What I AM saying is that it's not always a simple installation.


in my experience it has always been as easy as plugging in the device and installing the drivers. only problem ever was when i wondered what would happen if I changed the HAL, nothing worked after that - but thats my own fault for being stupid.



You were talking about how difficult it CAN be to install or configure Linux. All I was saying is it's not always just a simple matter of plug and play in Windows either.


for a beginner it can be an absolute nightmare. look at the absolute beginner thread.


You also seem determined to gloss over my whole 3rd paragraph. No I'm NOT talking about choosing things other than Windows. What I am saying is that ONCE you "choose" Windows your Freedom is very much limited.


From what you mentioned about your job, it seems that using anything but windows would have a serious impact on your ability to work. I feel in no way restricted by using windows. Everything I use my computer for I find I can do easily in windows, I have everything just the way I like it and it works perfectly. I am in no way restricted, if you mean about ownership of the OS itself, I really don't care about that, if I can use it thats fine.



If Windows meets people's needs, sure, it's ok for them to choose it. I find that Linux doesn't fully meet my needs SIMPLY because some software I'm required to use is Windows ONLY. So, by "choosing" to use Windows others are helping to reduce my choice.


So people should only choose what's good for you? I don't understand your point on this one.



People use Windows because Windows is what people use. It's a vicious circle, and I don't blame Windows users for that. But simply using Windows because that's what people use is the reason some tools, games etc. are only available for Windows. That's not a fault of Linux. Continue to perpetuate this and it only serves to reduce choice for users. Ignore it because that's what's comfortable for you and you are part of the problem.


People use windows because it is generally easy to use, looks friendly, is well known and has a mountain of software and hardware for it. This is because windows has been in the industry for 2 decades building alliances and promoting itself. Of course this is not the fault of linux, however what does "linux" do to address this?
I mean there are times when I don't even know what linux is. Sometimes the distrubutions are referred to as being linux,

'linux is great it comes with this that and the other and its all free etc etc'

other times I hear (especially when people complain about hardware not working)

'you can't blame linux, its fine, its just a kernel and it works great, its not linux's fault your hardware wont work, blame the vendor for not making compatible drivers.



I can respect that people use Windows because it's what does what they want, but for those who know better, you being one of them, simply using Windows because that's what does the job is part of the problem.

People like you selfishly use whatever does the job now, without a thought for how it affects YOU in the future. You're happy to use open source programs if they suit you, but forget what goes into those open source tools and WHY the open source tools are developed.


I resent that, I use the tools available to do the job. I take no moral stance on the issue and don't have a problem with people who want to protect their hard work. There are mountains of free (ie no money required) applications available for windows I don't care whether theyre open source or not, they cost me nothing and they function. I'm not so worried about the future, I have what I need now.


I have Windows XP Professional dual-booting on this machine, and XP Home on my Desktop. Each defaults to Ubuntu Linux and Windows is ONLY used when the software or tool I need is ONLY available on Windows. I have Office installed in Windows ONLY because some software ONLY exports to Excel.

That software ONLY exports to Excel because the developers of that software believe that everyone has Office. It's ubiquitous, so in a way we're forced to have it. The same can be said of Windows.


Doesn't open office now read and save to microsoft formats? You could run a virtual machine in ubuntu and use your windows products in that.


I'm a tax accountant, in Australia, and my software, ALL tax software, runs ONLY on Windows....so we're forced to use Windows. Everyone uses Windows, so everyone uses Windows. Even access to the Tax Agent's Portal on our Tax Office website is restricted to Windows, because the digital certificates used only install on Windows. A fault of MS or Windows? No. A fault of Linux? No. A problem of ubiquity? A problem of monopoly? Most certainly. People use Windows because people use Windows.


It's not windows fault that digital certificates won't install on ubuntu, can't linux do anything about that?



I CHOOSE Linux because it's nicer than WIndows. It doesn't nag me. It doesn't tell me every time it does something it should do anyway. It doesn't self-promote. It just works. It aint perfect, but neither is Windows. Both are a long way from perfect, but from my point of view, Linux is much closer than Windows.


nice is a very subjective term. Windows doesnt nag me, I have all nagging turned off. It only does what I tell it to do. I don't see the word windows anywhere on my machine, I even have the boot splash changed. It just works for me. Neither are perfect but I prefer windows because it does everything I need without having to run a virtual machine or faff around with wine. in the end I choose windows because I have the
CHOICE.

[Timbothecat]

I work in the IT industry. Mainly what I do is system and network analysis and management which (as has been pointed out here) consists almost entirely of MS systems.

I also do installations for home users so I'll give you a couple of examples from my experience there.

Firstly, went around to a clients house the other night to set up her new machine running Vista Home Premium. Most things went without a hitch... except the printer. Thank God MS's 2 decades of experience got this one right because it added an extra 1/2 hour to the job (which I didn't charge them for btw, not their fault that Vista can't sort itself out with a 6 month old printer. The same client is doing a University course and needs a proprietary software package. Running Vista and Office 2007 this software which is only one generation old isn't compatible with her system. More over, the advice she's given, "downgrade to XP and put Office 2003 on your system". :shock: Not happening of course, she's getting a virtual machine with 2003. There was a fix for the problem that I found on the net but... it only worked in about 50% of the cases and we weren't one of the 50%.

Secondly, my son's machine was having problems (taking 5 minutes plus to load a program etc) so I decided to install Ubuntu. I was expecting problems and configuration challenges along the lines of printers and network but was pleasantly surprised. The printer worked straight away (which was strange to me because I dual boot with Open SuSE 9.2 and it hasn't worked with that for over 2 years (12 months since trying it out though I must admit). It took me 20 minutes to get the wireless network up which was a bit of a concern. I wasn't really sure what this meant because it took roughly 4 hours to get it to work with the XP machines that were running on it when I bought the wireless router.

Having worked with windows for years (imho) gives me the right to compare the 2 os's. For those that think that Ubuntu offers nothing you can't find in Vista I simply say... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ

:)\\:D/