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 23

cbugsubunt
September 22nd, 2009, 08:09 PM
Stability and Performance!!! need more??

am 25 and i count 10000 blue screens! :) that's enough

crtlbreak
September 22nd, 2009, 08:28 PM
Why even the debate or Comparison?

Mobil1
September 22nd, 2009, 08:35 PM
My top 3 reason would be:
1: Community and support with Ubuntu / Linux OS's outshines any technical support service.
2: It works properly ie no BSOD or crashing / freezing etc etc etc...lol.
3: Security - the never ending security issues with Windows always used to worry me.

ahill1950
September 23rd, 2009, 01:38 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?

Money, $$$$, more money, time, using a real operating system, not having a single program take down the entire machine when it fails, etc.. I am an MCSD, MCDBA, MBA, CPA who has spent 20 plus years making a real good living supporting Windows. I owned the company that designed and ran the technical infrastructure of one of the Big 3's largest education facilities (100 million plus building with 1000 plus desktop computers). When we were approached to give our opinion on Windows 95 (yes I am that old) we replied 'please get it'. When asked why we were so enthusiastic about it, I replied that I looked forward to doubling my staff to support the piece of junk and billing them for it. The went with 95 and I trippled my staff. Things have not changed. Windows is, in my professional opinion a piece of XXXX. If the world had taken the right turn when CPM/MPM and DOS were competing, we would be 20 years ahead of where we are now. I would conservatively estimate that Windows has cost the American economy at least a trillion dollars in lost productivity in comparision to what would have happened if Unix or any one of it's variants had been adopted instead of Windows. When asked by Flag Star to give his professional opinion on WINDOWS vs. Unix, my brother answered 'Windows is video games for the office worker and Unix (Linux) is for people who want to get serious work done.

If you are really serious about why, first do some research into what an operating system is. Linux is an operating system, Windows is a program running on top of DOS. No I am not a PHD in computer science but both my nephew and niece are who, along with my brother who holds Masters Degrees in Computer Science and Mathmatics will gladly spend hours explaining why Windows is not an operating system.

Admittidly Linux is much more restrictive than Windows. As far as I know (I have just gotten back into Linux - I programmed in the Unix environment for a couple of years a long long time ago) it does not allow programs to control other programs across program boundaries like Windows does. (i.e. dragging an Excel worksheet into a Word document) It is harder to program to for a reason. It is secure. Just take a look at this item about Linux virus software. Notice that the major reasons to get a virus scanner for Linux is WINDOWS.

For the most part, Linux is engineered in a fashion that makes it hard for viruses to run (click here for more info (http://librenix.com/?inode=21)). Also, because more PCs currently run Windows, it is more worthwhile writing viruses for the Windows platform. However, there are many reasons you might want a virus scanner on your Linux PC:


to scan a Windows drive in your PC
to scan a Windows-based network attached server or hard drive
to scan Windows machines over a network
to scan files you are going to send to other people
to scan e-mail you are going to forward to other people
some Windows viruses can run with Wine (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Wine).
Linux virus (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus) infections are theoretically possible

Enough said. If all you are doing is word processing and Internet and you don't mind having to purchase virus software and keep it up to date and still have to have your WINDOWS machine fixed at least once a year, keep using Windows. If you want to understand what a real operating system is and what a joy it is to not worry every day if your system is going to crash or get infected then I suggest you get UBUNTU. It will take some time to get up to speed but it is worth it.

P.S. A quote from a friend who worked at Microsoft for years when I told him what I thought about Windows. He smiled and said "We are not a software company, we are a marketing company."

Jedi Ron
September 23rd, 2009, 09:06 PM
I first went to Ubuntu for an older HP laptop. The thing came stock with windows ME and out of the box never really worked right. Sometimes the sound buttons would work sometimes they wouldn't. Sometimes you could play a DVD sometimes not. On occasion if you were lucky it would let you write to a recordable DVD. I upgraded to Windows XP and it didn't help.

When I inherited the laptop from my wife last Summer (she went to an Apple) I reformatted the HD and installed Ubuntu. sound works like it's supposed to, DVD writer works, etc. The only problem I had was getting DVD's to play but after I discovered medibuntu they work fine now. Since then I baught a netbook and loaded the netbook remix.

I am now in the process of changing my desktop over. The biggest problem so far is getting my Palm Centro phone to sync. If I can just find out how to do that (or find a new phone/organizer that will sync) I will be content with life.

billdotson
September 23rd, 2009, 10:46 PM
I use Ubuntu (and Linux in general) because it is much more open and a much better environment to learn about computer-related things. On Windows you have to buy a piece of software for most everything and if you find a free version you aren't really too sure if you should trust it (and it still probably isn't open source).

Aside from some issues like program incompatibility (which is an issue of market share), commercial PC games (falls into program incompatibility too), and some things being too difficult (so many different sound servers: jack, alsa, oss, pcm stuff and multiple issues with getting sound devices to work, at least for me) I would use Linux for everything.

For the most part I use Windows XP only for games. For Linux I do everything else.

tcoffeep
September 23rd, 2009, 11:52 PM
Depending on the games, I use Wine for gaming. It handles a lot of older games better. However, I still make sure I have an XP partition for gaming. Anyways, I'm off-topic, as I don't use Ubuntu, and I didn't choose Ubuntu over Windows (and never would, tbh).

Exodist
September 25th, 2009, 10:26 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 using linux over xp?

I dont make this guys wallet fatter!

Let me introduce you to the anti-Christ!

http://www.precentral.net/sites/androidcentral.com/files/wp-migrate/2008/10/ballmer.jpg

afroman10496
September 25th, 2009, 03:44 PM
I dont make this guys wallet fatter!

Let me introduce you to the anti-Christ!

http://www.precentral.net/sites/androidcentral.com/files/wp-migrate/2008/10/ballmer.jpg

off topic:P

vonlexden
September 25th, 2009, 05:21 PM
I have used Windows and all its marks for years. It has nearly driven me into a mental home what with viruses, junk adware, spyware expensive internet security systems, endless hang-ups glitches and crashings - then endless reinstalls.

AND THEN I FOUND UBUNTU!

I am no longer beholden to anyone - I am free!

vonlexden

Exodist
September 25th, 2009, 07:23 PM
off topic:P
Yea oops... That was a 4:30 in the morning post..

Back On Topic:

I have Win95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista. They all stress me out while trying to run them, theres tons of instability in 95 and 98. 2000 had alot of issues with trying to run games. XP is prob the most stable and fastest ATM, but it is ever more stressful to keep spyware of this system and after running for a few weeks the system does start to slow down for no apparent reason. Then there is VISTA, Vista is the OS that broke the horses back. I spent 150USD on VISTA to be able to run DirectX 10, just to get slammed by the most over bloated I have ever seen. This OS thrashes my system left and right for no reason what so ever, games run slower and at the end of the day there is nothing to do on it but try to run spyware checker, virus protection and defragment.

So since VISTA, that is the last time M$ will get a single red penny from me.

Giant Speck
September 26th, 2009, 07:17 AM
http://www.precentral.net/sites/androidcentral.com/files/wp-migrate/2008/10/ballmer.jpg

At least he doesn't have toe-jam stuck between his teeth like a certain other fatass in the computing world.

AsianSpanker
September 26th, 2009, 07:18 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?

I had one computer, the one I used with dual screens that I used windows XP on. I swore that the next virus that got through my expensive virus protection would make that last computer go Super OS. It happened this weekend. The only reason I was hesitant was the dual monitors. But I will be d++med if I am going to pay for virus protection that doesn't work to protect programs I had to pay for. I paid for Windows XP, I paid for Word, Excell, etc I paid for McVirusKiller. And they all do not work because some smarty wanted to prove how much smarter he was than me.
I don't want to play.
Not at these rates.http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/smiley-faces-75.gif

afroman10496
September 28th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Ok don't want to be off topic here or start a political thing but doesnt Micro$oft already have enough money to last another century? Why don't they just offer Window$ for free and open source it so the talanted guys here can actually make it usable?:-k

Frak
September 28th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Ok don't want to be off topic here or start a political thing but doesnt Micro$oft already have enough money to last another century? Why don't they just offer Window$ for free and open source it so the talanted guys here can actually make it usable?:-k
Because it's perfectly usable, and no, they don't have that much money.

zman58
September 28th, 2009, 04:31 AM
Read the Windows EULA. Read the license agreements for all of the software you use on your Windows system. Try to understand what they say you can not legally do.

..Then read the GPL. It will hopefully then be quite obvious to you why many people choose Linux.
http://www.fsf.org/

shaunsmith_99
September 28th, 2009, 07:45 AM
I'm a graduate student in Industrial Engineering. Linux lacks in Statistical software, but I have two choices....

a) Pay $2,400 for Simulation software for Windows. Also, throw in $200 for Matlab, $120 for MS office, et cetera.

b) Use Linux, and have access to some open source software which some brillant folks in the open source community have contributed out of their own time and $$.

Shaun D Smith

errigalmarten
September 28th, 2009, 02:35 PM
Stability, freedom from viruses, malware, and the like. No need to reinstall, lots of community support, limitless control over the OS; I can customise everything and anything to my needs or tastes. I still use XP Pro SP3 for games on my main rig, but... That's about it. Ubuntu is the only OS on any of my machines that I don't game on because it's simply better than Windows at the things I need/want to do.

FunkyRes
September 28th, 2009, 05:57 PM
I use Linux (not Ubuntu specifically) over Windows because I build my own computers, no need to purchase an OS, gobs of software that works extremely well readily available (and the Windows ports of same software are not as good), viruses are virtually non existent, package management is superior, it's just overall a better OS for me.

afroman10496
September 28th, 2009, 07:04 PM
I use Linux (not Ubuntu specifically) over Windows because I build my own computers, no need to purchase an OS, gobs of software that works extremely well readily available (and the Windows ports of same software are not as good), viruses are virtually non existent, package management is superior, it's just overall a better OS for me.

im gonna build my own computer when i get the parts but ubuntu supports more drivers for me (never installed buntu on one that ubuntu didnt recognise the drivers)

bhadams1
October 2nd, 2009, 04:42 AM
I choose Ubuntu over Windows, because of:
1) It's faster boot up than Windows on my Netbook (Dell 9 Mini--My 9 for short :)
2) I use it only for surfing, blogging and word processing.
3) With occasional slide shows (while traveling and taking a bunch of pictures), light picture editing.
4) I don't want to feed monolopizing computer companies and close source applications.
5) I like that if I don't like it, I just program it myself.
6) If I don't know how to, or if there's a problem and I can't fix it, someone in a forum knows how to.
7) I take part in the open-source movement :) Because I believe it is the future or a future for a better change in practice.
8) In my opinion, I find Ubuntu easy to learn, than Windows. And, I've proven that with a relative who does know any thing about a computer, and never experienced Windows, DOS, Mac or Linux.
9) I believe in trade systems. Ubuntu is Free, so I donate what I can to Ubuntu. In fact, I bought a t-shirt, stickers and coffee mug to help advocate and advertise.
10) Ubuntu has all the application I need in one, smaller than Windows/Mac package.

ugriffin
October 4th, 2009, 04:50 AM
To me, the story was quite simple.


Got a PC with Vista. 1GB RAM, and a single core 2.2GHZ processor. A year of usage made my pc run awfully slow. Installed a Wubi install of Kubuntu Intrepid. It was kinda awesome to see my computer running so fast with better eye-candy than Vista (in my opinion).

Switched to Windows 7 RC. Ran awesome for a while, then it slowed down, like any Windows. Wiped it off, and replaced it with XP.

Replaced Kubuntu with Ubuntu (KDE with GNOME). My PC ran even faster.

Used XP for a while... but each time I use it... I feel... so... vulnerable. No UNIX or cheap UNIX imitation (UAC) to save my sad butt in case of a virus getting in. If a virus gets in on XP, it has a free rein to do whatever it wants. And no, I refuse to limit my experience to a Limited Account.



Besides Amarok > iTunes anytime. Nautilus-Dolphin> Windows Explorer. Look at your apps. Your Linux equivalents are usually better (with the exception of MS Office, which you can run with Wine).

So yeah. Choose. Vista= Safety, eye-candy & compatibility, but slowness, DRM, and a crap OS in general. XP= compatibility, awesome os, fast, but a big little OS that's just begging to be attacked by some trojan/worm/malware.

Ubuntu= Safe, fast, awesome eye-candy if you want, UNIX (which once you use it, you depend on it. Seriously, it's kinda relieving to be able to download almost anything and know its not a virus). On the downside, you get less compatibility (you can run lots of apps with Wine), and the fact that you can laugh at Windows users who have a turtle computer cuz their Windows registry is completely messed up.


Those are enough reasons, really.

Genius314
October 4th, 2009, 05:39 AM
Originally, I had Windows ME, and no spare copies of XP (my parents computer had the only one at the time), so I looked up Linux, and found Ubuntu. There were a few problems with configuration, but at least it didn't give me a BSOD on every other bootup... :P

Then I got a copy of XP, which overwrote GRUB when I installed, so I couldn't get back into Ubuntu. I didn't really care, as long as my computer worked. But then I got into customizing, and realized that I could do so much more in Linux than in Windows. I reinstalled Ubuntu, and never looked back*.

*Okay, well technically I still use XP in VirtualBox for a few programs... Hopefully WINE will improve, or more alternatives will appear, and I can get rid of it entirely.

Other reasons for using Ubuntu:
1. It, for some reason, is easier for me. Whenever I have to configure something or install something on a Windows computer, it's always a pain. Ubuntu tends to make most things easier. And for the rare occasion where something requires the terminal or some config file editing or something, it's usually either really straightforward, or there's a lot of friendly people willing to help out.
2. Drivers. It seems odd, to me, that an OS that you PAY FOR has less plug-and-play than a free one. If I want to configure Windows, I have to dig around for all the driver CD's, look them up online, and jump through hoops just to install them. In Ubuntu, I can just plug something in (almost always, at least for me) and it'll work.
3. Freedom. It's cliche, but I like not having to spend money on an OS or software. I also like the fact that I could, if I wanted to, change anything in my system, without worrying about some rich suits suing me.
4. Ubuntu keeps up its speed. Windows always bogs down within a month or two. Ubuntu works (for at least six months) without slowing down at all (I can't say whether or not it gets slower after that, though, because I always install the latest version)

shaunsmith_99
October 4th, 2009, 07:42 AM
I'm an engineer. Linux has HUGE repository for programming, statistics, mathematics, and et cetera programs..

avacado
October 4th, 2009, 03:00 PM
For an example of microsoft ethics search for Ric Richardson of UNILOC versus microsoft.

Astrals
October 5th, 2009, 03:39 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?

Mate, i have read some of your posts from other forums, (if you use the same username), your not a fool, but you ask this ????
I have been using linux for over 2 years now, started with fedora for my first taste of the linux world.
For my answer i hope is not rude but i really do think that it is obvious. If you only learn one thing in life let it be freedom, reliability, and customization (personalization), expression, and most of important listen carefully to my favourite comment "Once you use linux, learn a few basics, you will never go back to the windows darkness !"

KayakJim
October 5th, 2009, 07:34 PM
I just purchased 2 Toshiba Satellite laptops that came with Vista 64-bit SP1 that are replacing 2 Dell Inspiron laptops. One Dell is running Ubuntu 8.10 (development box setup as a web server) while the other is running XP SP3 (email, surfing, & word processing). Even though the new Toshiba's have *much* better specs than the Dells, the Dell running XP is faster than the Toshibas and the Dell running Ubuntu is the fastest.

I plan to nuke the Toshibas and install Ubuntu 9.10 when it comes out at the end of October. No more BSODs, bloated and slow AV software, and a lot more free drive space. On a 64GB SSD over 49GB is already being used. :o

Khushboo_khan
October 8th, 2009, 07:58 AM
Linux is better than Windows. but Linux is very difficult to use. i like linux becouse of on virus.

joyneo04
October 10th, 2009, 10:24 PM
The best benefit of using ubuntu is that u can use it without any worry of virus attack...no anti virus is required....

greymoose58
October 10th, 2009, 11:47 PM
I have two laptops, a desktop and a proxy server running Ubuntu at home. At work where the industry standard software doesn't like WINE (I keep checking anyway) we have three XP desktops and an UBUNTU file server.
My experience of both in the last three years:

At home I only have to deal with the setup if I want to change something major. For example, I upgraded the OS on the server to add a print server.
I can't remember the last time a home machine (or the Ubuntu server at work) crashed. My XP machine at work crashes several times a week. That really effects my productivity. That means better value for money for me (I run my own business at home) than for my employer.
Our ten year old family computer runs as fast as my three year old work PC!
At work we constantly have to worry about the latest virus. At home we have Clam running but don't really pay much attention to what is out there. (Maybe not too smart but viruses are definitely less of a problem on Linux.)
Best of all at home I get to choose what goes onto my machines at work I have to take whatever Microsoft thinks I need.

Putting aside all the philosophical issues Linux costs less to run in time and outlay for hardware as well as allowing me to be more productive. There is no competition as far as I am concerned.
Now, I just need to change the industry standard software somehow...

the_monster
October 11th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Because on my new comp I had restore Vista FOUR times because of getting hit with viruses. If that enough reason I don't know what is. Besides with WINE and VirtualBox I can run the Windows software I like. It's alot safer.
:P

NoaHall
October 11th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Linux has the tools I need, and much better support for 64 bit, and my amount of RAM.

jordilin
October 11th, 2009, 03:50 PM
It has more than 25000 packages of software and all of them under the power of apt-get. Much more secure, much more faster, intuitive, friendly, community support, free and opensource.

Boom!!!
October 11th, 2009, 04:43 PM
I have never had Windows, my first computer was a Mac, computers we have now is dads Mac (highest spec) and my PC (Kubuntu 9.10)

ricojonah
October 14th, 2009, 05:09 PM
1) As a software junkie: If I want to find useful software without opening up my wallet, I don't have to scour the internet for freeware websites.

2) As a hardware junkie: If I want to make my system super-fast by turning a bunch of cheap USB hard disks into a striped RAID, I can't do that with Windows.

3) As a paranoid user: I don't have to install some iff-y, freeware antivirus, crazy software firewall with ridiculous security prompts, and anti-spyware that eats my system's memory.

4) My wife yells at me less often about computer crashes with Ubuntu.

On all of these notes, number four takes the cake.

ranch hand
October 14th, 2009, 05:53 PM
1) as a software junkie: If i want to find useful software without opening up my wallet, i don't have to scour the internet for freeware websites.

2) as a hardware junkie: If i want to make my system super-fast by turning a bunch of cheap usb hard disks into a striped raid, i can't do that with windows.

3) as a paranoid user: I don't have to install some iff-y, freeware antivirus, crazy software firewall with ridiculous security prompts, and anti-spyware that eats my system's memory.

4) my wife yells at me less often about computer crashes with ubuntu.

On all of these notes, number four takes the cake.
+1

Pelsia
October 14th, 2009, 11:53 PM
Ubuntu (any Unix OS in general) has a much friendlier and supportive community. They actually help each other rather than hording information or charging for answers. Huge array of free software to choose from, and much easier to make changes in the UI than it ever was in windows.

Only virtue that Windows still has in my book is its gaming capability. Given time though even that will start to diminish as Wine and other such projects get better and better.

proxess
October 15th, 2009, 02:36 PM
We can't deny that Windows will become "better" ("changed" to be more precise) and Wine can only follow.

I tried once really hard to use Fedora 2 as my first Linux, it was extremely difficult and I gave up. When Warty came out, I decided to give Linux a go again, forcing myself to use it as my main OS. Now, I can't live without it. I wish gaming (and my GPU) were better supported, but that's just the way things are. I dual-boot with Windows 7 at the moment for most my gaming needs, tho I don't game often so I can't really justify the price of Windows, tho the price of Ubuntu (free, open!) is more than justified.

Niko Johnson
October 15th, 2009, 02:41 PM
There are a lot of advantages to using linux. One of the main things is that evertying is a file, meaning you can change anything you want and fully customize your mechine. I know making the change is a little hard at first, but when you start using linux more you will find that the advantages are undeniable. and as far as playing games, you can always get emulators very easily and play windows/dos games on there, and in the add/remove section of games there are hundreds of games to choose from. Dont worry, taking away your linux virginity only hurts the first time ;)

uberdonkey5
October 15th, 2009, 02:54 PM
Because on my new comp I had restore Vista FOUR times because of getting hit with viruses. If that enough reason I don't know what is. Besides with WINE and VirtualBox I can run the Windows software I like. It's alot safer.
:P

I have dual boot (with Vista), and though I use ubuntu 90% of time, I thought Vista was much more virus resistant? Isn't that what all the 'do you wish to run this application' buttons are about???

what happened?

CharlesA
October 15th, 2009, 03:21 PM
I have dual boot (with Vista), and though I use ubuntu 90% of time, I thought Vista was much more virus resistant? Isn't that what all the 'do you wish to run this application' buttons are about???

what happened?

That doesn't stop viruses. In my experience, people just click "YES" whenever they see a prompt.

NightwishFan
October 15th, 2009, 06:08 PM
'Security' is very complicated, and is as much the user as the OS fault at times. Linux is generally and has longer been more resistant to user error than Windows. Nowadays who can say, though I would still think a well developed open source app has a better chance of resisting.

uclugLee
October 15th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Why Linux?


No virus, spyware, malware, etc
Extremely stable
Don't need a registration code to activate
Open Office over M$ Office
If there's something about it you don't like, you're encouraged to change it

In other words, you're free of Micro$oft's "it's our way or the highway" attitude.

djbon2112
October 16th, 2009, 12:21 AM
BasicallyI 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 do: it's not almost a decade old! :guitar:

But seriously, I got sick of Microsoft's ****, of having to pay the Microsoft tax every 2 years, of having to reinstall every 3 months, of having to run a virus scanner and tons of other **** to keep the computer secure, of being locked into what Microsoft thinks is right (DRM), of not having freedom in my OS.

I just find Ubuntu looks better, runs better, and is cooler than Windows. My gaming rig runs Windows, but my laptop will forever be Linux!

Pelsia
October 16th, 2009, 03:01 AM
There are a lot of advantages to using linux. One of the main things is that evertying is a file, meaning you can change anything you want and fully customize your mechine. I know making the change is a little hard at first, but when you start using linux more you will find that the advantages are undeniable. and as far as playing games, you can always get emulators very easily and play windows/dos games on there, and in the add/remove section of games there are hundreds of games to choose from. Dont worry, taking away your linux virginity only hurts the first time ;)

I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2 when Linux at the time was still a command line only OS. Trying to setup X-Windows on FreeBSD is a tiresome process, requiring (last time I tried) complete manual configuration of everything. Since I've kinda had my head burried in the sand the last two years working on my Masters degree really haven't had time to play around, or time to make the change.

Recently having a 6 week break allowed sufficient time to backup all files, and convert data into a readable unix format. I've wanted to switch for a long time, but never had the time needed to do so without risking missing something by doing it in a rush.

My laptop is only a 2.2 dual core with 3gb or ram, running a VM on a highly resource demanding game would cause a noticeable hit (others have tried it on the same game and said it wasn't pretty). I see more game developers starting to port/write their games to be compatible with Linux just from public demand (and they run better in Linux anyways).

A lot of people have said that Windows 7 is really great, finally a worthy Windows OS. Though the pricing is turning a LOT of people away and many don't like all the built in DRM that bloats Windows and slows it down. While Micro$oft may have finally produced a worthy OS, they shot themselves in the foot by pricing it out of reach. I can see there being a big influx of new Linux users that are fed up with having to fork out hundreds of dollars for what Linux can do for free. :P

LitUpAgain
October 16th, 2009, 08:09 PM
My sarcastic answer is because it's doubtful I'll see some fat open-source guy screaming: "Developers! Develops! ARGGGHH!!!" at me ala Balmer.

My more prudent (but still sarcastic) answer is I dig the whole open-source groove and everything that comes with it. Linux is at a point I can watch my movies, tv, and play the games I happen to like under wine. If I need XP for something I can VirtualBox it. ([MS specific-].NET development, etc.) Being able to hack my OS/Dev environment to Hell and back if I wish is pretty sweet.

No need to go into virus and other arguments. As it is I'm probably open-source advocates' worst nightmare: I'm happy MS is huge and taking the vast majority of the punches from the world's script kiddies.

Or their occasional discriminating/cross-dressing mobster employers/friends who are having problems hawking stolen trucks full of high fashion clothing because the economy's not so good and so hire said kiddies.

I also have no interest in chasing the Vista/Win7 short bus. I say short bus because those OSes are utterly retarded. 32bit versions?!? WtF?!? If they had stuck to 64bit there's not as much I could say (actually, yes there is), but to me it's a red carpet welcome to legacy & memory bounds hell. What brain trust from MS came up with that?!?

I'll continue to learn the short bus OSes for work because having $$$ for food is a good thing. Otherwise the Balmer boyz can keep it in Redmond.

mrpeachy
October 16th, 2009, 09:42 PM
I switched from XP to Ubuntu for the following reason.
One day when I booted up XP it performed "chkdsk /f" and completely screwed up my system. I believe there was a countdown period during which I could have stopped it, but I wasn't infront of my computer computer and I didn't really know what it was doing anyway.

I assumed whatever it was doing was necessary.

Luckily I had everything backed up, so I decided to try something else and installed Ubuntu.

I had been thinking of "escaping" Microsoft anyway, so i guess this gave me the excuse.
So far I have found Ubuntu to be faster and prettier. The no virus/adware/spyware etc is just a bonus.

gsparky2004
October 17th, 2009, 07:06 PM
I'm in a new job that requires some in-depth knowledge of programming. I've found it to be much easier with Linux to learn programming (C, C++, shell scripts, Perl) than I did with Windows. I also enjoy the freedom of being able to dig into the operating system in a way that Windows would never allow. I like knowing exactly what's going on with my system. And Linux doesn't try to hide anything.

I'm slowly getting away from WinXP, although my system is not yet solely Linux. It's a dual-boot. BUT I now have it where I can boot up with either OS, check my e-mail (using Thunderbird) and both use the exact same files. If I change a filter setting in one OS, by default it's changed for both. That's helping to ease the transition. I've used OpenOffice for my desktop publishing for several years, so that's made it even easier.

There are still some things that I can only do in Windows. But that list is getting smaller as I learn more about Linux and learn how to do them on the Linux side. Some day, maybe soon, maybe in a few years, but some day, I will get away from Windows completely.

nothingspecial
October 17th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Coz it was on the stupid computer when I got it.

MountainX
October 19th, 2009, 02:38 PM
A lot of people have said that Windows 7 is really great, finally a worthy Windows OS. Though the pricing is turning a LOT of people away and many don't like all the built in DRM that bloats Windows and slows it down. While Micro$oft may have finally produced a worthy OS, they shot themselves in the foot by pricing it out of reach. I can see there being a big influx of new Linux users that are fed up with having to fork out hundreds of dollars for what Linux can do for free. :P

For me, it has nothing to do with the price. I would choose Linux even if Windows 7 was given away at no cost. Because the real cost of Windows is the loss of my personal freedom. When I use Windows, even my data is not truly free (as in freedom).

I just installed openSUSE 11.2 KDE on my Thinkpad T61p and the experience has been great! You couldn't pay me to use Windows 7.

ranch hand
October 19th, 2009, 03:05 PM
For me, it has nothing to do with the price. I would choose Linux even if Windows 7 was given away at no cost. Because the real cost of Windows is the loss of my personal freedom. When I use Windows, even my data is not truly free (as in freedom).

I just installed openSUSE 11.2 KDE on my Thinkpad T61p and the experience has been great! You couldn't pay me to use Windows 7.
+1

I, personally, do not like open SUSE. One of the advantages to Linux is the wide range of choice in the OS behavior, so many really nice distros.

If it were just a choice of Winwhatever and SUSE, I would go with SUSE in a heart beat.

fela
October 19th, 2009, 05:03 PM
I use Linux because I decide what my computer does, not Microsoft.

KayakJim
October 19th, 2009, 08:44 PM
i use linux because i decide what my computer does, not microsoft.

+1

hoghunter82d
October 20th, 2009, 02:24 AM
Faster booting up, FREE, Bill Gates still has more money than I do, Secure, Stable, Flexible, ect. I went dual boot from frustration with windows. This forum has helped me a lot with the learning curve associated with Linux. Whenever i had a problem with windows, it involved wading through bunches of crap just to get more confused. Any questions that I have can usually be found on here, or get answered very quickly.

jakarta31
October 21st, 2009, 04:53 AM
It is more stable, faster and overall way better than any windows os.
And best of all IT DOES NOT CRASH WHEN THE INTERNET CONNECTION IS LOST (vista issue that was never resolved)

ranch hand
October 21st, 2009, 03:20 PM
It is more stable, faster and overall way better than any windows os.
And best of all IT DOES NOT CRASH WHEN THE INTERNET CONNECTION IS LOST (vista issue that was never resolved)
WOW, another one from Montana. Care to give a clue as to where in Montana?

MFGorilla
October 22nd, 2009, 02:33 AM
simply for security and stability.

Windows Nerd
October 22nd, 2009, 03:35 AM
Because Windows is a pain in the *** no matter how good you are to it: virus free for years, but it gives me hell when I play graphics intensive games (and it is NOT my hardwares' fault, I have sufficient hardware to play those games). Crappy security though it claims to be secure. THE REGISTRATION KEY, do not get me started on that. Face it, Windows sucks.

Ubuntu>Mac>My cell phone OS (whatever it is)>Windows. PERIOD

JDShu
October 22nd, 2009, 04:43 AM
When I first used Linux years ago it was cause it was new and interesting. I switched back to Windows eventually.

Now I use Linux because I don't want to run ad-aware and cCleaner every day and continue wondering why my computer is running so slow and taking so long to boot up despire having recently defragged it. I useUbuntu specifically because it doesn't give me any hassle.

Montrevux
October 22nd, 2009, 07:13 AM
I use ubuntu because I enjoy it. But I use windows too. I don't have any preference, really.

tmtan
October 22nd, 2009, 09:03 AM
why the crap should i have to register an operating system? why should i have to pay for something that isn't going to fulfill what i need it to? f that.

NightwishFan
October 22nd, 2009, 06:34 PM
I agree, I dislike registering. Piracy happens regardless of Microsoft's security measures. It is only a way to make people spend more money if they need a new license, or confuse them.

I agree that you should only have 1 Windows installed per CD, unless otherwise stated, mostly because Ubuntu does not have that restriction and that is great.

Niko Johnson
October 22nd, 2009, 06:40 PM
i just love open source software... "Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free." --Richard Stallman

m4tic
October 22nd, 2009, 07:01 PM
i really don't think people bashing Bill Gates for his successes is a good thing, he made money fairly and he was rich before any real competition came along.

OK now to the question. I use Ubuntu, *thanks for the applause*, as it has a wide variety in customization, simple things like your own keyboard shortcuts! really we go to school and don't need an OS teaching us what shortcuts it wants us to use, we want chose our own, that's one of the many easy features any OS needs.

It seems as if my computer related stress levels have gone down since we at Linux have no virus infections, the only way to bring my desktop down is suicide, no 15year old across the other side of the net. It really feels stupid for me dual booting windows but i can't help it since I'm using a SiS based chip, sh*t.

Ubuntu is by far the best experience I've ever had and there's no need to buy a windows 7 machine as ubuntu can do anything win7 can do and even better, can someone name any windows default program that beats ubuntu? Programs like security center in windows 7 makes you wonder... "ain't it safe?" System restore shows an OS's weakness. i could name a lot of dumb features many of us know but isn't worth my typing time.

Use and abuse the resources Canonical gives you before they change their busness plan

MIH1406
October 22nd, 2009, 09:36 PM
If you have legs, why do you use cars?

ranch hand
October 22nd, 2009, 10:58 PM
if you have legs, why do you use cars?
+1

fela
October 23rd, 2009, 06:32 PM
I use open source software because I know what goes on in my computer and have control over it. Windows would deny me this control and lock me into its way of life.

Also, I don't agree with Microsoft's ethics (or its lack of them).

RiceMonster
October 23rd, 2009, 08:28 PM
I use open source software because I know what goes on in my computer and have control over it. Windows would deny me this control and lock me into its way of life.

Also, I don't agree with Microsoft's ethics (or its lack of them).

Do you actually read and understand all the source code?

Silent Warrior
October 24th, 2009, 08:14 AM
I know I don't, but I find the gesture of trust a nice one. (Besides, I get a kick out of watching Wesnoth-SVN compile! 8) )

the_monster
October 25th, 2009, 02:45 AM
Security on Vista is a joke. And the firewall I liked the most wouldn't install on Vista. I had Avast running, but by the time I was being warned about something, it was too late. And I wasn't running evil things, I was doing as I usually do. At least in Linux if I don't have to worry about s^&t like conflicka or what hell it was. Also Vitro was another that gave me fits when I was using Vista.

samh785
October 25th, 2009, 02:53 AM
I chose Ubuntu over Windows for


Ideological reasons (I have a love affair with the concept of open source software)
Not having to deal with viruses/spyware/adware
System stability (I can just run my computer non-stop for weeks at a time
The price point (nothing quite like free)

LoREZ
October 26th, 2009, 04:02 AM
1. I'm a tinkerer. No stable OS lets you tinker like Linux, and Ubuntu was the most attractive distro for my taste when I got in the game. ATT Arch was too much, Mandriva too little, and I had a bad taste in my mouth for RedHat (Fedora). Frankly, I was bored with Windows. The XP environment pretty much disgusts me now.

2. Structure. I like that Ubuntu (like other *nixs) is modular, with the desktop separate from the underlying OS, and the driver model, and the ridiculous number of tools. I have complaints about this in some areas, like the cobweb of config files that should all be in the same place (like Arch), but I digress.

3. Variety. I love constant, unending variety. I like things to change, and often. The spice of my computing is trying things out on a regular basis. I like that there is always something new around the corner, and 95% of the time it's free. I wish there was a rolling release branch of Ubuntu, because while I'm a tinkerer, I'm too lazy to use Arch for my main distro.

I'd say "stability" like a lot of other folks, but tbh my experience hasn't been hugely better than XP on this front: pretty good, but not stellar. On rare occasion my install crashes for mysterious reasons. But, unlike XP, I've never had a 1:1 relation between launching a program and crashing my machine.

I am happy that I run ClamAV for my NTFS volumes (to protect other PCs) and not for the sake of my sanity.

I'm happy that a community obsessed with freedom is building the stuff I use; I love that there are no secrets in my programs, even though I can use my programs to keep secrets!

admelfo
October 26th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Good discussion. I posted my opinion earlier here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1087024).

Like I said -- we'd save a lot of energy. ;)

pveurshout
October 26th, 2009, 07:56 PM
A year and a half back I started using Hardy because my Windows installation desperately needed a clean install and I thought "Hey, why not give Ubuntu a try now that I'm doing a clean install and have to back up everything anyway?". I kept using it because it was just awesome: fast, stable, and -unlike Windows which needs maintenance all the time- it just worked (well, except for a few little things such as battery recognition and memorizing my WPA key..) (these have been fixed in Jaunty, by the way).

Jaunty, on the other hand, has been a huge disappointment. From the moment I installed it, I started to experience random system freezes like every other day (or more). I only kept using it out of ideological reasons (and because my current Vista installation refuses to install updates). I somehow managed to decrease the frequency of these freezes by a whopping 90% by switching from NTFS to Ext3 for my torrenting, but I've been trying out Fedora and Debian recently so I can switch to something else (non-Microsoft) in case Karmic won't make things better :(

jeffus_il
October 26th, 2009, 08:00 PM
I'm jealous of Bill Gates' billions and don't want to help him make more at my expense.
Why not?

Trog
November 6th, 2009, 01:00 PM
I started using Linux at work (SGI and RedHat boxes) so when Ubuntu appeared I leapt on the bandwagon, both feet first.

At home I use it to:
Edit pictures, music & movies.
Provide a firewall with access controls to help keep my family out of contact with the nastier side of the web (Smoothwall on an old PII PC).
Provide a server to house all my media and shared access for the printer (Ubuntu on an old 1GHz PC).
Make proper use of multiple CPUs.

What can I do with Windows? Well, all of the above but, to do so, I would have to pay through the nose for 3 copies of it and be willing to spend a lot of frustrating hours setting it up and sorting out software/driver conflicts on older PC hardware (been there, done that).

P.S. Forgot to mention my daughter now uses Ubuntu at uni to run Maya

hoppipolla
November 6th, 2009, 01:07 PM
It's the best operating system I've ever used :)

mivo
November 6th, 2009, 01:33 PM
why the crap should i have to register an operating system? why should i have to pay for something that isn't going to fulfill what i need it to? f that.

I don't choose Ubuntu over Windows. I use both (and ArchLinux) on different computers. My main work machine runs Windows 7 and I'm very satisfied with it. My laptop uses Ubuntu (at least for now), a secondary desktop is fueled by Arch (used to be an Ubuntu box, but I wanted more flexibility and a rolling release distro), and so is an old laptop. Oh, and my netbook runs XP.

Initial costs are irrelevant to me. No, I'm not filthy rich, but €150 for an OS I use for years is not a significant investment. Time, however, is. So from that perspective, Linux has been more expensive for me than Windows.

But, OSes are tools. Use whichever works best for you and meets your expectations. It's possible to use more than one. ;)

alexk554
November 6th, 2009, 01:49 PM
I use Ubuntu because it boots up so fast, the desktop is really quick, and I've never had it hang, even when I have lots of stuff going on. (30 seconds and Im in, I think my Windows takes 3 times as long). For just browsing the web, watching movies, chatting, music, etc. its a lot faster than Windows. I like MacOS as well, but where I live it costs %50 more than the US retail price, so I cant afford one.

I still use Windows though, theres too much that I need it for, but this weekend I'm going to investigate installing Vista into Ubuntu via VirtualBox.

If it works like a bomb, I might format my PC, and install Ubuntu as primary, using Windows via VM when I need it.

I love where Ubuntu is going, and the more people that get on board, the more improvement we'll see.

LinLou
November 6th, 2009, 02:11 PM
I would give some of the same answers as some of the peeps above..

For me using ubuntu is better than windows because
- No anti virus software is needed.
- It is not possible to get a virus while using linux.
- Most of the programs that users need are free.
- I could say that linux is more stable than windows( i've never seen my ubuntu crash)
- Microsoft makes way too much money from selling low lvl programming software(low lvl because most of the windows programms crash very often).
- Ubuntu are lighter than any windows. (i think windows 95 might be an exception).

ehmm i can't think of something else right now...

mivo
November 6th, 2009, 02:54 PM
- Most of the programs that users need are free.

I only use open source software on Windows, except for games.


- I could say that linux is more stable than windows( i've never seen my ubuntu crash)

I never lost wireless or had to reinstall after applying a service pack. That aside, XP and W7 have not been more or less stable than Ubuntu for me. The experience is comparable. FreeBSD has been more stable than both of them. I never really turn off my computers.


- Microsoft makes way too much money from selling low lvl programming software(low lvl because most of the windows programms crash very often).

I haven't had a Windows program crash in a very long time. I had Linux software freeze on me that needed to be kill-ed to regain control. It depends on what software you use. MS Office is reportedly more stable than OOo, but that is what I hear, not first hand experience as I use only OOo on both Windows and Linux.

I do not blame people for wanting to make money. I do not work for free either, nor do I eat or live for free.


- Ubuntu are lighter than any windows. (i think windows 95 might be an exception).

Not in my experience. XP runs much better on older hardware (4-7 years old) than the current Ubuntu releases. Ubuntu is fairly heavy and bloated. W7 is much better than Vista in that regard and I have seen it run fast on a 1.6GHz/1 GB netbook. If I want a light and fast distro, I install Arch from scratch. W7 is very well done. I don't care for how MS does business, but the OS is outstanding.


ehmm i can't think of something else right now...

Most of your points clash with my own experiences. I run two desktops, one with W7 and one with Linux, an Ubuntu laptop, an Arch laptop and an XP netbook, so your mileage may vary. I do see a lot of people repeating FUD and "facts" that may have been true in the ME era.

Redsandro
November 6th, 2009, 03:05 PM
I do see a lot of people repeating FUD and "facts" that may have been true in the ME era.

Thank you.

I am both a windows and linux user for years. They are both superior to each other in different ways. I get pissed by fanboys being dishonest.

If you use your brain, you can get a perfect Windows running. With Ubuntu, especially 9.10, that's more difficult. I have to kill apps often, I put that new applet on my panel: Kill Application.

Now I wonder why they would go through all the trouble to create such an applet if nothing crashes?

LinLou
November 6th, 2009, 03:42 PM
As far as i am concerned you are using both ubuntu and windows.. and i suppose that you play games??!!.. well thats a reason for supporting windows.. if someone wants to play.. well then ubuntu is not for that.. is for far more serious stuff..


FreeBSD has been more stable than both of them. I never really turn off my computers.

Our real issue is not FreeBSD but Ubuntu VS Windows.


I do not blame people for wanting to make money. I do not work for free either, nor do I eat or live for free.

Well i don't mind that you don't mind buying or using low lvl programmed software.. Everybody has a choice..

Each machine is different.. Whenever i used windows XP or Vista i always had an issue going on.. or my laptop crashed.. I am running Ubuntu for a year now without having used windows again and i have never got a crash report.. I have never even seen my PC freeze.. Even now by using the 9.10.. I think that depends on each machine..

Also, every program in ubuntu is open source so everybody is welcome to do its part and improve the software.. Every six months a new version of ubuntu is released giving the ability to the user to use the latest technologies.. Also linux are customizable.. windows are not..

I have a laptop and a desktop.. Desktop runs Arch linux as server and my laptop runs ubuntu 9.10.. no problems till now..

mivo
November 6th, 2009, 04:13 PM
As far as i am concerned you are using both ubuntu and windows.. and i suppose that you play games??!!.. well thats a reason for supporting windows.. if someone wants to play.. well then ubuntu is not for that.. is for far more serious stuff..

Such as? What are you doing in Ubuntu that is "far more serious" than what you can do in Windows? There are plenty of professional applications that have no Linux equivalents, because there's no large enough market yet.

Oh, and if you work in the gaming industry, playing games is quite serious, if only to see what "the others" are doing. (But I'm a gamer anyway, or I'd not be in that field.) I have done all sorts of "serious stuff" on Windows in the past 16 or 17 years that I use Windows (TOS/GEM before that, and prior to that Amstrad's OS). I prefer coding (as a hobby or small work scripts) in Linux, but if I had to use C#, Windows would be the platform of choice.

Redsandro
November 6th, 2009, 04:48 PM
2x lol


and i have never got a crash report..
I used to get a lot of crashreports, and when submitting, the crashreporter itself is even crashing! Not joking. :P But not so often anymore now that I did a clean install.


What are you doing in Ubuntu that is "far more serious" than what you can do in Windows?
I actually use Windows to do my serious stuff, and I use Ubuntu mostly for my gaming and entertainment!

Maybe it's because I play classic games and they run perfectly fine in wine, sometimes even with a higher framerate than in Windows. And because of Linux's flexibility of running both linux and windows apps. Check Arcade Browser (http://xbmc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=48983). ;)

wavery
November 6th, 2009, 08:25 PM
I have an easy answer for this. I'm brand new to Ubuntu as of yesterday. I have a laptop (circa 2002) that was running XP. Despite reformatting the HD and reinstalling XP, and keeping it barebones just to access the internet, it was still unacceptably slow. It was NOT this slow when I bought the computer 7 years ago and it was loaded with and running many more applications. Lately, between all the Windows/AV/Malware updates, I was spending more time scanning and updating than I was actually using the computer. I'm 24 hours into using Ubuntu on the computer and the difference is amazing. I feel like I've brought the laptop back to life.

On a side note, I just upgraded two other computers to Windows 7. Part of my satisfaction with Ubuntu stems from the bad taste of having to buck up for Windows 7 after suffering through Vista. After my brief Ubuntu experience, I'm now regretting the money I just spent on Windows 7.

ssj6akshat
November 7th, 2009, 08:28 AM
i have been running Ubuntu for Months and no reformats.with xp I reformat every day.

mivo
November 7th, 2009, 10:12 AM
i have been running Ubuntu for Months and no reformats.with xp I reformat every day.

A likely story. :p

I really hope the people who were unable to keep XP (or any Windows) free of viruses and malware never try to install LAMP or SSH. ;) There was a time when I didn't fully understand why Ubuntu doesn't offer an actual root account. That question has long been answered since.

almikul
November 7th, 2009, 11:00 AM
I started using Ubuntu in December 2008 out of curiosity, at first. My laptop came in the summer of 2007 with Vista pre-installed, and it was quite buggy, especially with sleep and hibernation. It took Microsoft one year to fix it for my laptop. I could actually tune Vista in such a way to avoid getting the spyware and viruses, so I could run it for 1.5 year without reinstall and without major slow down. Then, I tried Ubuntu Intrepid, and got the same problem with ACPI that Vista used to have. But this time, it took Ubuntu community only one month to fix it. Since January 2009, I have been using exclusively Ubuntu (with VM, of course :) ), and I have yet to regret my decision.

What I like about Ubuntu: No continuous HDD swapping (Windows made me crazy with its hundreds of background processes)
Applications load faster (it's subjective, but that is the case with FF, GIMP, and Open Office)
This forum - you can find virtually any discussion about any problem :)
Ubuntu is an open-source software, and although I am not a developer, I really appreciate it
I can run some design tools locally on my laptop (with proper license files) instead of sharing one CentOS server with 20+ users
If one application crashes, it does not bring down the entire system
I haven't restarted my laptop while running Intrepid for 4 months, and it ran just as fast as in the beginning. Could never pull this with Windows (Vista or XP). I am, however, a realist, so I know that I have to keep Virtual Machine handy in case I need to ensure that my document will be compatible with MS Office.

Redsandro
November 7th, 2009, 12:20 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/ClamTK3.08.jpg

Never say never ;)

registerkar
November 7th, 2009, 10:10 PM
Windows fanboys always claim that u get windows virus cause u open some **** stuff or click on some exe's like fools or u r dumb & dont know how to use windows bla bla bla...they just dont know rather IGNORE how horrible windows has become for malicious softwares. U just can get infected by visiting malicious site...no need to click or download or run...its a mad world...I use Windows & i have to run zonealarm, Avira Antivirus, malwarebytes & Bitdefender (offline) all at once to keep my system protected...I use a limited bandwidth net in India...just 1GB per month...Most of the time one of the security software is updating eating up my bandwidth...Today i am free...I am happy cause for the past 2 months i have discovered Ubuntu...I try to do all the max i can do in ubuntu...Serious Stuff & Fun Stuff...u can do it...U just need a OPEN MIND...

I have all my systems updated in windows but still i constantly feel insecure for all the malacious codes around even though i have all security software upto date. Its very very very secure feeling to use linux ...

I someone who saw the first light in PC display as Windows 95 & who has used windows forever say that

LINUX IS:
Safe
Easy to USE
Easy to Maintain
Even for Dumbs
Even for Fools
No need to say For the Intellect
Great for net users
Great for Everybody
Secure...& lots More...

Its AMAZING !!!...

For those who have CLOSED the 'Windows' of Wisdom use 'Windows'
For those who have OPENED the Doors of Logic there is 'LINUX'...

Redsandro
November 7th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Spoken like a true fanboy. ;)

Zoot7
November 7th, 2009, 10:20 PM
There's a quote floating around that goes:

"Microsoft gives you Windows, but Linux gives you the whole house"
That's my reason. :)

mivo
November 7th, 2009, 10:32 PM
Windows fanboys always claim that u get windows virus cause u open some **** stuff or click on some exe's like fools or u r dumb & dont know how to use windows bla bla bla...they just dont know rather IGNORE how horrible windows has become for malicious softwares.

Please cut down on the netspeak. Your message was painful to read.

Yes, I think that because I have used Windows since 1992 or 1993, and I have never, not once, had even one virus. I had online access even at that time, pre-internet. I see how people use their computers. They download whatever shiney thing they see, they open email attachments, they don't bother with a decent virus scanner, they visit "warez" and porn sites, they click obscure links, they pirate software, and they don't use very simply stuff like a NoScript add-on.

Windows has been the major consumer platform for a long time now, so of course it has the largest number of clueless people, and is also the most interesting target. The same people would go under in Linux if the platform was more popular among average users and if popular distros didn't babysit them.

And here I will burst your little safety bubble: The Fedora servers, running on Linux, got hacked recently. The same happened to the Arch site's server. Paypal and Google had security breaches not long ago, both using Linux on their servers. The company I work for had their server comprimised (running CentOS) because of a PHP4 exploit. Just because no one bothers to hack into your computer doesn't mean it can't be done.

Linux is "safe" for "dumbs" (as you call average users) because distros like Ubuntu block the root account. Windows' earlier design mistake was that everything was done in administrator mode. That is still a problem. But don't think even for a second that the people who got swamped with viruses and malware would ever be able to run a secure LAMP system or safely turn on SSH. An insecure Linux system is way, way more dangerous than an insecure Windows system.

You can close your eyes to this and just repeat the same FUD over and over, but that won't Windows 7 worse or Linux more secure. :)

Unlike you, I use Windows *and* Linux. Different boxes for different tasks. No dual-booting. The way is "balance", not zealot-ry.

Edit: Ah, registered in October 2009, and 5 posts outside of the Cafe. I would not have bothered responding if I had noticed before. ;)

gerowen
November 7th, 2009, 11:15 PM
1) It's free
2) Makes better use of system resources. Startup and shutdown are faster, and programs generally complete tasks faster.
3) As a novice scripter/programmer I can write my own software and more easily make it available to other users and customize what it does.
4) Increased system security and much lower virus likelihood.
5) More customizable.
6) "If" it does break, instead of being faced with a non-interactive BSOD followed by a forced start, I can alt+ctrl+F1-F7 and access a terminal, or start the system without X, and fix the problem from there with a HUGE array of command line tools. Hell you can even browse the internet and download stuff using only the command line.
7) Just the amount of free software solutions is mind-boggling. If only everybody knew they could save so much money by using FOSS.

The community support for Ubuntu, and Linux in general, is much more supportive than the MS community from what I've seen.

tkoco
November 8th, 2009, 07:28 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?

Try deep-diving into the Windows Registry. If you ever have to do that, you will appreciate the simplicity of configuring Ubuntu Linux. All it takes to screw over Windows is to make one single typing error (or delete the wrong key) in the registry editor. With Ubuntu, errors can be recovered from relatively easy. Screw with the registry (or screw-up the registry) and it's reload Windows again (and again, and again...)

mivo
November 8th, 2009, 10:23 AM
All it takes to screw over Windows is to make one single typing error (or delete the wrong key) in the registry editor. With Ubuntu, errors can be recovered from relatively easy. Screw with the registry (or screw-up the registry) and it's reload Windows again (and again, and again...)

Yeah, and the average Windows user messes around with the registry, randomly deleting keys, just like the average Ubuntu user sudos and then randomly deletes various system binaries, right? ;)

As for the registry ... have you looked at gconf-editor?

kyuubi777
November 8th, 2009, 10:27 AM
"Microsoft gives you Windows, but Linux gives you the whole house"


going on my facebook page! that is an awesome quote.

pretty much sums it up as well.

kyuubi777
November 8th, 2009, 10:57 AM
Yeah, and the average Windows user messes around with the registry, randomly deleting keys, just like the average Ubuntu user sudos and then randomly deletes various system binaries, right? ;)

fair enough point, yet, do you know how many times some win32.dll or hal.dll file or other somehow got "corrupted or erased" for myself and my friend both booting xp?.. i think it happened once for my dad, twice on my machine and once for my friend.. not to mention all the various viruses and the DE is absolutely wretchid .. and those stupid little pop up icons when the system loads up..

and to use your point, haw many of the normal users are going to know how to replace a .dll file when it gets corrupted?

i think under ubuntu, you sort of inadvertently start to learn a bit more about how the operating system functions which then leads to more and more knowledge.. idk it just sparks me in that way.. so maybe through ubuntu we might develop a community where the majority of users are double shot normal users w/ whipped cream. ;)

Fiberfolly
November 8th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Re: Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows

I switched to Ubuntu last week because I'm sick of the blue screen of death, the 10 minutes to get online, and the crappy attititude at Microsoft that we users do not mind buying new software every time they create a new version. I love the 10-20 seconds to get online with Ubuntu. I love the clean look. I love the ease of installing and removing software. I love the speed of browsing the internet.

I am currently using Jaunty and it is working flawlessly. :D

marcopolo1981
November 9th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Why do I choose Ubuntu? Simple really, because I can!

NightwishFan
November 9th, 2009, 08:01 PM
I thought about this the other day. I always say that I give Microsoft credit when it's due. (I give apple nothing.) I took a look at Windows 7, and looked past all the advertising and hype. I have found that it is not terrible, though not my taste. However my issue is that I would not even be able to use it. My PC barely meets the requirements to run it, and that is if I somehow manage to buy it first. So I rely on Linux, and I am glad it exists.

ranch hand
November 9th, 2009, 08:30 PM
I thought about this the other day. I always say that I give Microsoft credit when it's due. (I give apple nothing.) I took a look at Windows 7, and looked past all the advertising and hype. I have found that it is not terrible, though not my taste. However my issue is that I would not even be able to use it. My PC barely meets the requirements to run it, and that is if I somehow manage to buy it first. So I rely on Linux, and I am glad it exists.
See my sig for box specs.

It came with Vista. Ran SLOW.

Under Ubuntu it runs like a striped ape.

No MS on board now.

karimruan
November 9th, 2009, 08:31 PM
I have been running ubuntu as my primary OS for a while now.I just installed XP in virtual box, and within minutes had a virus, I was online to get my bitdefender download.

That is one of the major reasons. Security.

hitman9211
November 9th, 2009, 08:31 PM
Yeah that's mine choice what should I have, that's why preference is given to window XP.
Simply Because it is easy to use and work with every application.
:lolflag:

Rambar
November 10th, 2009, 09:48 AM
Why Ubuntu? Because Im already tired of Windows. It was ok when I was a kid because all I used to do was playing games. But now, as I need the computer for study, development and simulation purposes, Windows is no longer an option.

Chame_Wizard
November 10th, 2009, 02:23 PM
1. The daily things: Browse the web,check email,IM,downloading torrents(include ISO),IRC.

2.The personal stuff: Office stuff(pdf and),reading mangas/doujinshis(H include),organize my /home directory.

3.Entertainment: Listens to music,watching movies/series/anime(H include),converting media files.

4.System use: Programming(C++),making website(CSS),learning how to fix/report bugs(not yet good),WINE and Virtualbox,learn/work more at my system,Terminal.

5.Relaxing: Playing games(Nexuiz,Open Arena>>>any 3D games with OpenGL).


6.Security: I only have Firestarter,but I can check in the codes what the problem is(when something crash),a lot of how to manuals,SElinux.

7.Applications who are freely available(.deb files and repositories) and the LARGE COMMUNITY(include SUPPORT).

It's FLOSS,cause I never ever reinstalled Kubuntu(only clean installs of new version):popcorn:

johnboy1313
November 10th, 2009, 02:38 PM
There's a quote floating around that goes:

"Microsoft gives you Windows, but Linux gives you the whole house"
That's my reason. :)

well said

Chirpz
November 10th, 2009, 10:14 PM
I have a customer that needed a reliable VPN network to access his file storage from a distant city on a regular basis. So I bought an old computer at a garage sale for 10 bucks, a Pentium 300. Set it up with Ubuntu Fiesty Fawn and the linux version of Hamachi. Mounted and shared the NAS storage from his windows network and we suddenly had a VPN that works great.

It has been running solid now for over two years with nobody touching it. It stays on all the time. Has never crashed. It just keeps going and going. Speed is adequate.

doonit
November 11th, 2009, 05:02 AM
I'm really a NON-computer geek and I struggled with Windows for years. When Windows is first installed and has minimal applications installed it works fine but given time the slowdowns and problems always come. I learned that my computers needed fresh boot-ups evry 6 months or so if they're going to work properly. I had to use up a lot of friendship points with my IT-type friends in the XP maintenance battle.

Recently, after Windows went on a week long update spree and used up a lot of my precious capped bandwidth (South Africa) I decided I needed a change. I read a bit on the web about which OS would suit me and decided that Ubuntu would (hopefully) do the trick. I ran it for a few days, booting off a SD card, and then took the plunge as soon as Koala was released last week.

Its been about 6 days now and already I can say that, with the help of the fantastic forums I've been able to configure my PC (for the most part...its still WIP) on my own. I could never do that with my limited knowledge in XP

dmeehan
November 11th, 2009, 05:38 PM
I have an old pc (about 3 or 4 years) and it was struggling with Windows XP. I tried to remove all the uneccessary bloatware, and defragged and all that stuff, but it still was very slow.

So I ditched XP and went for Karmic, which I am happy to say is performing much better.

StillOnTheEdge
November 11th, 2009, 08:51 PM
I recently made the change over from Windows to Ubuntu. There were several reasons for this change:

1) I wasn't planning to shell out money for a new version of Windows.
2) I was tired of the constant battle with virii/malware
3) I was ready to expand my knowledge in the computer world.

But the biggest reason was...

4) I decided that I wanted to be completely legal in my dealings with software, so much so that I deleted large amounts of downloaded data and shredded well over 200 DVDs full of stuff. Every program I have now is either GPL or legally licensed/purchased. And there is a ton of programs that I haven't even begun to explore for my Ubuntu box.

All of that being said, there are some drawbacks that I have experienced. Most of the drawbacks are hardware related, but nothing that cannot be overcome with Virtualbox.

My experience with Ubuntu has gone so well that I will be reformatting the family PC to use Ubuntu as well, especially as my youngest daughter just got the PC infested with malware while researching a homework project. Hope that goes as well as my main PC has.

One last note: I haven't given up Windows completely. I still have 2 laptops running Windows that I haven't converted (yet).

mivo
November 11th, 2009, 09:18 PM
4) I decided that I wanted to be completely legal in my dealings with software

Open source software runs on Windows, too. I use the same FOSS applications on my Linux boxes that I also use on my two Windows system. Except games and the OS itself, there is no commercial for-pay software on my Windows computers. If you frequently pirated software, it's no surprise you had issues with malware and viruses.

Linux is a great learning experience, though, and definitely broadens the horizon. OSes, to me, are like languages: everyone should know more than one.

I can relate to some of what you said. I used to have quite a large collection of MP3 files that I had downloaded (never downloaded pirated software, but music files I did). At some point I just deleted them all, and now I only listen to CDs I own and to the free quality music from Jamendo.com. I don't do iTunes and such.

Skara Brae
November 12th, 2009, 12:35 AM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
It is my experience that MS Windows (including XP) keeps on doing things without me wanting it...

Like this, for example: "Please insert the last disk of the multi-volume set and click OK to continue". I still don't know what my "multi-volume set" is.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, does what I want, until I want it to stop (at which point it does stop). My iMac, still with OSX "Tiger", behaves exactly the same: it does what I want, until I want it to stop.

It is only MS Windows that seems to have its own will, and I do. Not. Like. That.

I am in charge, not the OS.

In fact, In a way, I "hate" Windows.

Diofan
November 12th, 2009, 04:51 AM
Oh gawd! Where to start???

In Linux:
Viruses? What are they???
Drivers...don't need to spend another hour installing drivers
Registry...Doesn't have one to clutter up
Defrag...Linux is a Far better disk "Housekeeper" then Windows

I also Hated that damned Genuine Windows Registration hassle. If I change hard drive or add memory it disabled my Registration. Not so with linux...Want a bigger HD or more memory? Turn off computer, install it, fire it back up...good to go!

As Mentioned before, I also like the idea I'm not making Bill Gates any richer buying his half-assed crappy software.

Another thing...6 months after installing linux, my PC runs just as fast as it did on day one! In windows, the PC would slow to a CRAWL! I have 3 computers here, only one runs XP, and only cause some programs I use won't run on linux. 2 desktops and a laptop. the Laptop has XP. Even got the wife hooked on Ubuntu. She loves it!!

drummingpariah
November 13th, 2009, 12:33 AM
My reasons are simple: I can always track down the source of problems. There are very few 'mysterious problems' that don't have explanations.

With Windows, it's another story altogether. Everything is a mystery, unless application developers see fit to create an event logger (almost none do). Then even if I do figure out what the problem is, I have to reverse engineer a solution using nothing but config files and keep guessing and poking and prodding those configs until they work. Not many things annoy me more than being unsure of what's happening.

McMichael96
November 13th, 2009, 12:42 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.


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.


Just install and use Wine to play games on Ubuntu (or any kind of Linux)

McMichael96
November 13th, 2009, 12:45 AM
I dual boot Ubuntu with Windows Vista. I would about dump Windows Vista if i could run iTunes on Ubuntu for my iPod and to play music.

Roasted
November 13th, 2009, 07:13 AM
I dual boot Ubuntu with Windows Vista. I would about dump Windows Vista if i could run iTunes on Ubuntu for my iPod and to play music.

I don't own an iPod, but I've heard of several apps in Linux that support iPods.

Hell even if I were on Windows I'd look for an iTunes alternative. That program pisses me off.

durand
November 13th, 2009, 09:16 AM
I don't own an iPod, but I've heard of several apps in Linux that support iPods.

Hell even if I were on Windows I'd look for an iTunes alternative. That program pisses me off.

Likewise. Some programs do support ipods. They obviously can't support commercial features such as the itunes store and drm encrypted music.

mivo
November 13th, 2009, 03:07 PM
Just install and use Wine to play games on Ubuntu (or any kind of Linux)

Not a solution for an ambitioned gamer, as you take a performance hit and plenty of games don't run at all, need a lot of tweaking, or are more unstable. As much as I'd like for Wine to be the solution to gaming on Linux, it isn't anywhere close yet. It has made a lot of progress, though.

NightwishFan
November 13th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Not a solution for an ambitioned gamer, as you take a performance hit and plenty of games don't run at all, need a lot of tweaking, or are more unstable. As much as I'd like for Wine to be the solution to gaming on Linux, it isn't anywhere close yet. It has made a lot of progress, though.

All of my games work as of Wine 1.1.31. The performance problems are there, but generally are not noticeable. In some cases, as with BFME2, the game actually runs faster on Ubuntu than Vista. (I have a terrible graphics, an extra 5 fps is really noticeable.)

Starcraft: Everything works, game needs 1 tweak to run optimally.
Morrowind: Music works in most versions of wine, but not 1.1.31.
BFME2: Disable gl shaders and game runs magnificently.

As for a hardcore gamer, that is true it may not be sufficient. However, it is excellent that as much works as it does. I am willing to only play what works, but I rarely spend money on any newer games. I will promote open source games.

mivo
November 13th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Starcraft and Morrowind are really old games, though. No idea what the third one stands for.

My problem with playing games in Wine is that you almost always have to make compromises and deal with minor or major inconveniences. I'm currently playing Dragon Age (WineHQ AppDB: "garbage, silver"), and Anno 1404 ("gold", though there are graphics issues) on my Windows box, neither of them would give me the same experience on my Linux boxes. I play much less than I used to, but when I do, I want to buy a game that interests me, not one that happens to more or less work in Wine, or accept limitations. It's recreation time.

But anyway, I don't mean to diss Wine. It has steadily progressed over the years and it is a fantastic project, and without Wine Linux would have attracted fewer people. I just don't think it's the solution to PC gaming in Linux, as the poster who I responded to implied. The solution would be more native games. I also play FOSS games like Wesnoth, but sometimes I just want state of the art graphics, too. :)

WinterMadness
November 14th, 2009, 01:18 AM
what everyone else said.

And, Windows XP is UGLY.

Windows 7 is the only windows that looks nice, and it ripped off KDE.

durand
November 14th, 2009, 01:27 AM
what everyone else said.

And, Windows XP is UGLY.

Windows 7 is the only windows that looks nice, and it ripped off KDE.

My thoughts exactly. One of my flatmates just bought win7 for a bargain student price of £40 and while it looks nice, every time I looked at it, I thought, KDE feature, hmm, old KDE feature, oh thats new - no wait, that's in gnome :|

mivo
November 14th, 2009, 02:01 AM
... every time I looked at it, I thought, KDE feature, hmm, old KDE feature, oh thats new - no wait, that's in gnome :|

When I first saw Gnome/KDE, I thought, "Looks and behaves like Windows."

When I first saw Windows, I thought, "Looks and behaves like GEM."

When I first saw GEM, I thought, "Looks and behaves like a Mac."

...

durand
November 14th, 2009, 02:05 AM
When I first saw Gnome/KDE, I thought, "Looks and behaves like Windows."

When I first saw Windows, I thought, "Looks and behaves like GEM."

When I first saw GEM, I thought, "Looks and behaves like a Mac."

...

But when did you see Gnome/KDE? I first saw them in 2003, and XP was not much like gnome or kde. But vista and 7 look so unbelievably like kde4/qt4, its really hard to say what they were thinking.

Operafreakr
November 14th, 2009, 04:45 AM
This thread is already way to long to but I wanted to add my take on this question. I have been a hardcore Windows user and "dabbled" with Linux from time to time until Microsoft started flaking. I LOVE LINUX! At first it is a learning experience... from installing to knowing what packages go and do not go with your hardware and etc. Then.... something magical happens.... you learn how to use Linux and you then learn what you like better.

As it has been said time and time again within these posts...

1. Updating and upgrading is a command away and needs no re-installations.
2. You can use it on any computer as many times as you want without a license.
3. You can customize the hell out of it and have more controls over system functions.
4. Linux does not use .DLLs that gives you headaches and breaks programs.
5. Tons of open source programs via package manager and apt-get.
6. Tons of open source replacements for you "typical" big name software titles.

At a earlier time I dual-booted Vista/Ubuntu and I found myself little by little using Ubuntu more than Vista. It was even more so after I found free replacement programs for my everyday titles and then some more that I never wanted to pay money for. I decided to go ALL OUT and install a solo OS.... Ubuntu. Things have been GREAT. I still run a copy of XP in Virtual Box for trouble-shooting and running what I now call "legacy" software instead of using Wine.

The only thing that I do not like that I have not figured out is how to get World of Warcraft running on my system as it did in Windows but it is all a matter of time.

*NOTE: Learning console commands makes it easier too.

quinnten83
November 14th, 2009, 12:20 PM
I dual boot Ubuntu with Windows Vista. I would about dump Windows Vista if i could run iTunes on Ubuntu for my iPod and to play music.

Write to Apple and complain.
not that that is gonna do any good, Apple is notoriously resistant to port anything to Linux.
Probably because they know that Linux offers almost all of it's benefits for a much much much more reasonable price.

mivo
November 14th, 2009, 01:26 PM
1. Updating and upgrading is a command away and needs no re-installations.

Have fun with this. ;)

(Tip: The first time you intend to use that "command", read the forums.)

isoToxin
November 14th, 2009, 01:26 PM
A few reasons, but mainly

Love the flexibility and complete transparency. It's possible to drill down and tweak as well as having far more control over how everything works & interacts.

Easier to do a lot of network related tasks. Good for penetration testing etc where the tools are more developed.

Use windows / Server 2003/2008 at work very heavily. Nice to get away from it while at home.

And of course, great community. Not been on the ubuntu distro long, but so far it's been helped greatly by the massive amount of info and user discussion.

WingNa
November 14th, 2009, 02:23 PM
It's quite clear for us over here: having used WinXP-Home editition for 5 years, with the rare but blunt surprise that something would not start [just someday lost the fire-wire for no apparent reason!], or was having an issue somewhere, and the ever increasing load of anti-virus tools, we decided to switch. Luckily we were using Mozilla, Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice already for quite some time [IE, Outlook Express really, and I mean REALLY ..... are bad], so moving those files to Ubuntu 9.04 was easy [even the anti-spam training came along with the move!].

We also did a major MoBo upgrade (Asrock-4CoreDual-SATA2 and intel E5200 dual core, 4Gb) on the PC. That was not possible with our Windows-Home installation just like that, it would NOT start (100% confirmed, we were really stuck at that point). You need to get your Win installation CD (OEM with original purchase is 5 years old), and prepare for re-install and REFORMAT C-drive (Repair, Rescue no succes). Then after registering our license again, it turned us down saying that the original license was inuse with another computer. (Confirmed)
So unless you prepare yourself for some surprises and a lot of re-installation work, never ever upgrade your hardware under Windows (except for some memory chips and HD's). [Leave the jiggling with windows licenses for the experts]. Just another experience that waisted quite some hours, that I rather spend on doing some creative work (Kino rocks)

Our PC now is doing its basic tasks again for over 1 year on Kubuntu (9.04->9.10). It just is there all the time when we need it and it just works. [and fire-wire is back too, so Kino is doing most of the CPU crunching, finally! we can go for the creative work again]

There is no real need to have Win (XP/-7) around. And with some help of WineHQ but even more/better VirtualBox we can launch Win-7 (witout any reboot) and use whatever app [taxes brr] people/organisations refuse to port/publish on Linux. So there is NO REAL limit anymore.
Ahh, gaming.., there is a point, probably will not run under Wine/VirtualBox too well/at all. If you need gaming a lot, skip the rest of this post and stay with Windows. Be happy.

But its easy to understand all these hesitations, you just dont trash that good-ol' bike/car just like that. So look at it like this: its like quit-smoking, there is no real easy way to do so, just do it. And then, after some time, you will really learn to appreciate the moment you did.

NightTiger2
November 14th, 2009, 07:22 PM
I simply got tired of dealing with all those Windows problems all day, it became too annoying to spend hours trying to figure out why the anti virus suddenly stopped installing updates and why the firewall started to block specific softwares or the whole net connection at random times (and I'm a very experienced user), plus the long time of having to leave on the comp on during scanning for anti spywares, anti rootkits and anti whatever else there already is today and you can't do anything else then couse the comp is too slow.

And I also got tired of having to buy new hardware every year just because M$ wants to
My current comp is almost 5 years old now and under Ubuntu it still runs faster and better then XP, and more graphics then what any Windows with their 200 million GB of RAM requirement will ever have (Linux is the real idea for an OS after all, one that runs on all computers no matter what they are).

mivo
November 14th, 2009, 07:57 PM
That is not possible with Windows, the WinXP requires re-install and new license key, so unless you want to pay for it again, never ever upgrade your hardware under Windows

I installed the same copy of XP Professional on four entirely different computers, using the same license code which was verified and approved every single time. I also upgraded some of those boxes and it was fine, also. My XP Home license, which came with a pre-build computer, also lived on three different machines.

Then again, I did buy my licenses and did not pirate a copy of Windows. As far as my experience goes, your statement is incorrect. Regular Windows licenses are not tied to a specific machine and can of course be re-used.

lesterness
November 15th, 2009, 04:27 AM
I was editing a book manuscript, a couple of years ago, and the dead line was approaching. But my Windows was totally ate up with viruses! I was screaming with frustration! Then I tried the Ubuntu CD my pal had given me and what do you know?? IT WORKED!! DID WHAT I NEEDED TO HAVE DONE! No viruses, either. I've stuck with it ever since, partly because NO VIRUSES!!! Partly because I despise giant monopoly corporations like Microsoft, Walmart, etc.

Lester Ness

WingNa
November 15th, 2009, 02:25 PM
I installed the same copy of XP Professional on four entirely different computers, using the same license code which was verified and approved every single time. I also upgraded some of those boxes and it was fine, also. My XP Home license, which came with a pre-build computer, also lived on three different machines.

Then again, I did buy my licenses and did not pirate a copy of Windows. As far as my experience goes, your statement is incorrect. Regular Windows licenses are not tied to a specific machine and can of course be re-used.
@mivo: You are right, in response to the original text, I gave it another thought and corrected it. Thanks.

But still: your reply involves having other CD's aroung than the original OEM CD that came with the purchase. I have tried our (genuine) OEM CD in all ways possible (Repair, Rescue, the lot). The only result was to perform a new install, since the existing installation refused to work after MoBo upgrade. Thats a fact. And the OEM install is a mandatory REFORMAT alright. So that means getting the latest SP on it again too, with all the sw installations, etc.

You said you have been installing the same license key on multiple computers and register. You say that works. Can you confirm that MS-update also works on all these machines? After the license validation check? If that is confirmed, I can not understand why Microsoft earns any money from selling Win-OS.

If you re-use the same license-key and register online, it will NOT work after changing your HW (confirmed). It maybe reboot alright, but thats not what we mean here. I did a BIOS flash update combo with increased memory/disk, and during re-install the license registration failed, saying the license-key (from previous succesfull install/ registration) was already in use. Registered online I mean, the way Microsoft wants you to. It definitely is bound to some essential machine characteristics.

So the conclusion stays: if you want to upgrade your HW (Mobo/ processor), prepare to buy a new license.

krendar
November 15th, 2009, 02:46 PM
My reasons are no Spyware/viruses, I actually feel its better for audio and video files (in contrast to the original poster). Most software is free as well. Whenever I need something in Windows the decent software you need to pay for. While much software is inexpensive, it soon gets expensive when you need to renew licenses for a dozen applications.

WingNa
November 15th, 2009, 03:27 PM
@Bonsanto: I'd say, why dont you stay with windows? Dont bother using Linux anymore. Be happy. Win-7 comes along, so.. stay there.

Ruiizu1990
November 15th, 2009, 04:58 PM
For me

~No spyware, adware, viruses etc, thus no anti virus programmes hogging my RAM and disc space
~I bought Vista a little while ago for my custom built PC only to discover Microsoft was dumping Vista in favour of 7. I shelled out £90+ for Vista 64 Home Premium, all for nothing, when I could've gotten the latest Linux distro update free.
~Customizable. This has already been mentioned before, but you have to invest in 3rd party stuff to tailor Windows appearance to your liking. With Ubuntu, I was pretty amazed at all the stuff available for FREE
~Nicer looking than Windows, IMO. I really like the human theme.

The only complaint I have with Ubuntu is lack of compatibility with Windows software. I'm having to find workarounds/alternatives for some my favourite programmes, but at least they're free...

mivo
November 15th, 2009, 05:15 PM
You said you have been installing the same license key on multiple computers and register. You say that works. Can you confirm that MS-update also works on all these machines? After the license validation check? If that is confirmed, I can not understand why Microsoft earns any money from selling Win-OS.

Yes, I can confirm this. I bought XP Professional in 2001 (a retail version in a box), and I have installed the same copy on four different machines that were partly also upgraded. The registration (per internet) always worked, updates worked, the genuine Windows thingie was passed, etc. I need to add that the copy was never installed on more than one computer at any given time. The EULA says nothing about not being able to do this. The Home edition was a OEM version that came with my old laptop. It also was installed on three different computers over time, with the same result.

I'm unsure why this is unexpected behaviour? It's like most other commercial software that you can install on any machine, as often as you want, provided that it's only installed on one box at a time (some EULAs allow installations on multiple computers at a time, as long as only one person uses them).

Why wouldn't MS make money? New people buy computers all the time and most computers come with Windows anyway, so MS already made money, whether you had a previous version or not. My netbook came with yet another XP license, even though I had a currently unused one, and there was no option to buy the netbook without Windows. MS made money with my purchase.


So the conclusion stays: if you want to upgrade your HW (Mobo/ processor), prepare to buy a new license.

I can't confirm this. Perhaps there are some vendors that give away Windows licenses that are limited to one install or tied to one system (or at least to the manufacturer), but this wouldn't legally fly here in Germany (or anywhere in Europe, as far as I know), and I never heard of this before. That would seem more like the vendor's choice than Microsoft's decision.

Akira Takano
November 16th, 2009, 12:32 AM
I just like linux due to the fact that it is easy to upgrade, as well as the fact that ubuntu is free AND good for programming because its open sorce. not to mention, i absolutly hate the microsoft corporation.](*,)

Ylon
November 16th, 2009, 01:00 PM
I am tired to learn the same things in a "new" form decided by Microsoft: again (95), again (98), again (2000), again (XP) and so.

Eddie Wilson
November 16th, 2009, 05:07 PM
I installed the same copy of XP Professional on four entirely different computers, using the same license code which was verified and approved every single time. I also upgraded some of those boxes and it was fine, also. My XP Home license, which came with a pre-build computer, also lived on three different machines.

Then again, I did buy my licenses and did not pirate a copy of Windows. As far as my experience goes, your statement is incorrect. Regular Windows licenses are not tied to a specific machine and can of course be re-used.

The last part of your statement is true. However I believe that he was referring to an oem-windows-license. An oem licenses cannot legally be transfered to another computer. When you replace the mobo with another kind the license is void. So your XP home license which came with a pre-build computer is being used illegally if you have it installed on different machines. And I say go for it.

mivo
November 16th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Why is it used illegally? It came with a computer that I paid for, and it was never installed on more than one computer at a time. The online authentication/registration also worked every time.

It may be a German or European thing, though. My XP Pro (bought as a box) was purchased in the US, but the Home (OEM) version came with a computer bought in Germany. I'd have to look up details, but I recall reading that OEM versions cannot legally be tied to one machine (here).

There has been a (German) court ruling that you may sell your OEM license even without the computer (reasoning: you bought it, you own it, you can sell your possessions in parts if you choose to), voiding Microsoft's EULA rule that you may sell your OEM Windows only together with the computer that it came with. Courts also invalidated Microsoft's stance that if you open the box, you agree to the EULA (reasoning: you can't agree to something you haven't been able to read). I think MS removed this statement from the box since.

Chances are that this applies to all of Europe.

BlackBullet
November 16th, 2009, 06:42 PM
I use it because I wanted to fix one of my computers that needed a new OS. I didn't want to pay for Windows (and didnt want ot steal it) so I remembered Linux was free. So I tried it out and I like it. Some people don't give Linux a chance, because it seems like everyone talks bad about it.

ankspo71
November 16th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Well, I would be using windows now if it weren't for dealing with an OEM licensed version of Vista. I bought it separately on cd and it ran well so I registered it right away. Then I went to install some cpu demanding games but saw my processor was severely lacking. So I upgraded my computer's processor, and guess what, it wasn't activateable anymore. I called up their support center and they refused to reactivate it for me, because I was bound by a single computer OEM license, even though, I just bought the cd (separate) and it is still technically the same computer. I can't get a refund either, of course. I don't like Microsoft licenses and I don't like the way Microsoft does business, but I have nothing against windows itself though. The computer shop didn't make it clear to me that I could run into problems like this... and I told them I was in the middle of building a pc. About 7 or 8 years ago (probably) I had a genuine XP pro disc break in my cd drive, and Microsoft wouldn't replace it either. It wasn't due to wear and tear either, because how often do we actually need to use these discs? I don't know, I am just so upset with that company and doubt if I will ever buy another version. okay, rant over, sorry about that.

Go Ubuntu!

Edit: Correction: I meant to say I would be dual booting Ubuntu and Vista.

simonbanyard
November 16th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Why is it used illegally? It came with a computer that I paid for, and it was never installed on more than one computer at a time. The online authentication/registration also worked every time.

It may be a German or European thing, though. My XP Pro (bought as a box) was purchased in the US, but the Home (OEM) version came with a computer bought in Germany. I'd have to look up details, but I recall reading that OEM versions cannot legally be tied to one machine (here).

There has been a (German) court ruling that you may sell your OEM license even without the computer (reasoning: you bought it, you own it, you can sell your possessions in parts if you choose to), voiding Microsoft's EULA rule that you may sell your OEM Windows only together with the computer that it came with. Courts also invalidated Microsoft's stance that if you open the box, you agree to the EULA (reasoning: you can't agree to something you haven't been able to read). I think MS removed this statement from the box since.

Chances are that this applies to all of Europe.

Actually, if you have an OEM licence, it goes against the EULA to install it on any other computer. It's odd that its validating, but I won't tell, promise!

ranch hand
November 16th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Actually, if you have an OEM licence, it goes against the EULA to install it on any other computer. It's odd that its validating, but I won't tell, promise!
I suspect that you are not in Europe. I know that I am not. What you say is true in the USA where the courts are owned by MS.

MS has not had quite is much success in European courts with their draconian EULA.

Eddie Wilson
November 16th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Why is it used illegally? It came with a computer that I paid for, and it was never installed on more than one computer at a time. The online authentication/registration also worked every time.

It may be a German or European thing, though. My XP Pro (bought as a box) was purchased in the US, but the Home (OEM) version came with a computer bought in Germany. I'd have to look up details, but I recall reading that OEM versions cannot legally be tied to one machine (here).

There has been a (German) court ruling that you may sell your OEM license even without the computer (reasoning: you bought it, you own it, you can sell your possessions in parts if you choose to), voiding Microsoft's EULA rule that you may sell your OEM Windows only together with the computer that it came with. Courts also invalidated Microsoft's stance that if you open the box, you agree to the EULA (reasoning: you can't agree to something you haven't been able to read). I think MS removed this statement from the box since.

Chances are that this applies to all of Europe.

You're probably correct and I agree with you that it should be that way. I know that here in the U.S. when you buy a pre-loaded pc with MS Windows you don't even get any Cd's most of the time. I've ran into the problem several times where I replaced a mobo for somebody on a pc that had Windows pre-installed and it would not activate. There are hacks around this little problem but it's not right to have to do that just because you upgrade your system. Microsoft does this just for vendor lock-in and to try to force the end user to purchase another license.

mivo
November 16th, 2009, 08:38 PM
I looked this up now.

The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court of Justice) ruled on July 6 2000 that Microsoft OEM versions (it was about MS products, but applies to all OEM software versions) may be sold separately without it being a copyright/license violation. This also applies to vendors who sell OEM versions to end customers, if the vendors received the OEM copies from an authorized distributor. Manuals and such must be included. (File reference: BGH I ZR 244/97) The full text of the court's decision can be found here: http://lexetius.com/2000,1754 (German text only).

A previous court had made this decision already in 1997, but a revision court overruled it. The BGH in turn overuled the second court's decision and for the most part went with the 1997 ruling. The BGH was the final instance and MS could not appeal.

So, this explains why my OEM version of Windows has been re-usable. :) Now I wonder if this is for Germany only or if it applies to other EU countries as well.

Zoot7
November 16th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I've a 4 or so year old XP OEM disk. It's been through 3 builds, and one motherboard change so far and it's validated online in each case no problem.

abr
November 20th, 2009, 10:04 AM
In my laptop I use triple boot windows , ubuntu and puppy linux. I like to switch over to linux in totu, but i am not - because

1. one of the financial accounting software presently we use in our office is Tally (India)- which is working under windows OS only.

2. Second - Our stock broker's supplied us a software to interact with their server (gotx - karvy online) which works only under windows.

3. I dont like the solution suggesting use of wine or any other intermediate layer - by which i can not remove windows completely.

4. Hence I have no options other than continuing the present triple boot solution.

5. Any way I like Ubuntu and puppy linux very much - for the speed / stability / freedom etc.

:P

telovin
November 20th, 2009, 05:05 PM
I like ubuntu beacuse it is pretty much secure than windows. Security is the first and foremost thing which made me switch to linux.Windows is ver userfriendlythough. But once u taste linux, it is really tough to live withoutit!

sfrasher
November 20th, 2009, 05:57 PM
After a year of fighting to get Ubuntu to work the way I want it to, it finally crashed with a hard drive error. I can't get it to boot, and I can't find any help online. Ubuntu was fast and when it worked, it worked good. But getting anything new to work is like pulling teeth! I am going back to XP!!

vexorian
November 20th, 2009, 07:25 PM
Still on ubuntu since three years ago. When really necessary I use my XP inside virtual box, windows does not make a good OS but it is a great ubuntu accessory :)

Why? Well, I originally switched because I got tired of having to break Eulas and hack windows XP just to change the icon set ^^.


3. I dont like the solution suggesting use of wine or any other intermediate layer

Why?

sfrasher: Next time don't buy hard drives in the gas store.

<h1>Mckennie</h1>
November 20th, 2009, 07:45 PM
faster. free. more powerful. free. no viruses. free.

mivo
November 20th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Why? Well, I originally switched because I got tired of having to break Eulas and hack windows XP just to change the icon set ^^.

^^ It has always been possible for the young folks to add their anime icon sets to Windows o.O, perfectly legally. xD

civilian
November 20th, 2009, 09:04 PM
I don't need much to start coding.

boballen55
November 20th, 2009, 10:03 PM
I like Ubuntu because it is open source. I think that we need to escape the current monetary system the world operates in and live in a much more sane resource based economy. The use and development of open source software is on of the first steps towards that end. To learn more about that idea explore the links in my signature.

aum11
November 21st, 2009, 04:57 AM
I am choosing Ubuntu 9.10 right now because it is so much fun.

I have just been looking at photo management software and there are sooooo many options.

Have also been checking out DVD backup programs......sooooo many options....and they are all free.

Can You believe the size of the repositories?

Let me not forget "no viruses", and no anti-virus software chewing up Your machine.

Let me not forget no defragging.

But above all I am a lover of Freedom.

In a world without walls there is no reason for windows or gates.

apocalypse80
November 21st, 2009, 02:42 PM
A few reasons;

1) I mostly work away from home connected to networks with varied protocols and *wildly* varying security.
That is not in any way a windows-friendly environment and the security advantage is a huge deal.

2) I have some programming experience => I love the terminal *hugs terminal*

3) I actually need more *nix-only software than windows-only.

4) I'll be damned if I paid through the nose for an ssd only to allow the delays induced by antivirus/antispyware/firewall/other crap dull it's effect.
Even office 2007 is faster for me under ubuntu/wine than it's under win7.
I laugh when reading in windows forums that "the ssd made only a slight difference".

Naphrys
November 22nd, 2009, 08:42 AM
I got a "hand me up" laptop from my sister when she went to boot camp last moth.

All the garbage that was on it was unbelievable. 60gigs, out of 70, worth of junk and I couldn't figure out what or where all of it was! Well I knew 10gigs were from Vista.
So out of equal parts frustration, curiosity and boredom I tried Ubuntu yesterday.

So far the only problem I've had was a tablet not being recognized, but that's not too bad.

lokisdottir
November 22nd, 2009, 09:29 AM
For me, currently, because Ubuntu the only thing that will work. My history with Ubuntu is a long and twisted tale of woe, full of unrequited feelings for this sleek, convenient, customizable OS and many gnashings of teeth that I can't seem to properly install it via thumb drive to my new computer. This older computer (Vista/Ubuntu dual boot) had so many hardware problems I had to put it away and resign myself to the reasonably well-performing XP on my newer computer, on which I could not install Ubuntu for the life of me. I was content if not happy for a while, and then...

This morning, the school network started locking me out because the computer had worms. I ran multiple checks, erased whatever bad code popped up and rebooted multiple times. Same thing each time. I finally gave it up and pulled out this older computer with the beloved Ubuntu install. No worms. No internet freeze-outs. Ubuntu right now is the only way I can log onto the internet on campus to research ways to get rid of this worm.

I am now looking for external DVD drives that will work with my new netbook. I have wasted so much time and expensive thumb drives trying to install Ubuntu without a CD drive, I'm not willing to give the method another go. But I do want Ubuntu on my primary computer. It may have given me heartbreak and pain, but when push came to shove it was the only OS that came through.

Chame_Wizard
November 22nd, 2009, 07:00 PM
Using a 9/almost 10 years old pc,giving it a new life as a reserve/server.:popcorn:

Pentium 3 Coppermine(1 GHZ with 512 MiB).

GSI
November 22nd, 2009, 07:09 PM
Same here...

Using my 10 years old PC with ubuntu 8.10 and windows XP (which I rearly use)

Ubuntu is a LOT better. It dosent crashes,its fast and i dont have to format my OS partition every 6 months...

cameronedwards
November 23rd, 2009, 01:12 AM
ironic.
my friend's computer was infected by a virus just now and it sent me a copy of the virus and i visited the site and... NOTHING HAPPENED!
YEH! :-)

projectbronco
November 23rd, 2009, 06:29 AM
I was tired of fighting BSODs, the slowness (especially booting), and worrying about viruses. I like things that are different, Ubuntu fills that catagory. I was building a computer and needed an operating system. Windows was $200, Ubuntu was free and BETTER! There have been no negatives besides the learning curve, a few things that I have not been able to get working (which I now don't use and can't even remember what they were...must have been really important), I do miss a few games, but it is worth it in the long run.

mmalone21
November 23rd, 2009, 06:53 AM
I am tired of Microsoft nickel and diming me every couple only for my existing hardware not to work due to incompatibility with Redmond's latest OS. Ubuntu is great. I use Windows at work because I do Computer Aided Drafting, but I use Ubuntu at home for most things because it is free and it just works.

npierce1
November 24th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Several, several reasons I use Ubuntu... 1) The Ubuntu filesystem is great. I'm very new to Ubuntu yet and I am flying around the filesystem like a 10 year veteran. Very very simple. Also no questions about where things are stored. I no longer have to deal with it being in...Program Files(86x)? or Common Files? or maybe Documents? You get my point. 2) No viruses. Enough said 3) "It just works". And doesn't crash whenever something *doesn't* work. xkill makes quick work of rare cases when things stop working. 4) Wifi works much better than Windows Vista. 5) FREE. I love their belief that software should be free and open source. Windows does not give you freedom. You can't even delete internet explorer. 6) Terminal, Synaptic Package Manager, Add/Remove Package Manager. Does windows have anything even remotely close to being as cool as these 3 things are??? 7) It's stable. It'd be a problem if I had all these things and the OS wasn't even stable. But it is stable. Quite stable. 8) Everything I have in Kubuntu 9.04, I would've had to either pay for, go through a short and feature-limited "trial" period, or settle for something significantly lower end (in Windows), which would, in turn probably crash. I've paid for nothing in Ubuntu. All those cool desktop animations, widgets and applets you see every Windows user trying to emulate by paying for a $20 program (which doesn't even come close to doing KDE justice)? I have those, and not only are they authentic, they're FREE. 9) Graphics aren't as bad as you think. I'm not a hardcore PC gamer; I don't have the time. I play a few old school SNES games on snes9x, and what more could I ask for. Sound works, I can save games, and I can use a wireless Logitech controller. 10) IT'S FREE

gerowen
November 24th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Just thought I would add another reason I choose Ubuntu. If something is broken, I can talk directly to the devs about "what" is broken, what I have tried doing to fix it myself, and I can get an answer from the devs themselves. The "personal touch" is something I love, people are completely different people when you actually talk to them than they are when they have that feeling of anonymity, it's one reason I hate talking on the phone. Anyway, I love the fact that the devs are right here in the forums answering questions and solving problems for us.

ziffolo
November 24th, 2009, 09:23 PM
My AVG antivurus expired, and in a month I got stuck with viruses and other malware again. I couldn't be arsed to reinstall windows. I just saved my most important documents, and had Ubuntu 9.04 already downloaded and ready on the desktop.... I burned the CD and said "bye" to Microsoft.

Now I feel like exploring a new, very fascinating world... even if I still got to figure out much of the stuff.

Merel 469
November 24th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Several, several reasons I use Ubuntu... 1) The Ubuntu filesystem is great. I'm very new to Ubuntu yet and I am flying around the filesystem like a 10 year veteran. Very very simple. Also no questions about where things are stored. I no longer have to deal with it being in...Program Files(86x)? or Common Files? or maybe Documents? You get my point. Not at all !

Please tell us what is wrong
- if programs are installed in a folder named "PROGRAM Files",
- if common program files are stored in a folder "Common Files"
- when documents are stored in "Documents"
(by the way you can store your data where you want)

Most (if not all) names in a Linux system are completely meaningless.

"Very simple" in Ubuntu ?

You must be joking or be a genius !
Tell us why many Ubuntu users have raised the same question over the years... where the hell their programs are being stored or where programs are to be installed. Many users complained about the file system and how partitions are named.

We might bring up all sorts of reasons why to prefer Ubuntu, but must remain honest in our evaluations,
and not convert real CON'S into false PRO'S.


This being said...
Windows versions and M$ software versions are not even compatible with their own previous software versions ! If in Windows you have some office document that can't be opened anymore ("because it was created in an earlier old version"[sic!]), chances are that with Linux, Open Office will open the document without problem.

If you can't delete a file in Windows, chances are that in Ubuntu you will access and delete the same file.

HeadHunter00
November 24th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Open-source, stability, library, security, speed, customization, and reliability. I can think of a lot more, but these are some general points.

HeadHunter00
November 24th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Basically freedom. You have freedom to do whatever you want with Linux. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, you won't have to pay for the upgrade. There is no professional version with more feature that costs.

Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

Agreed

staf0048
November 24th, 2009, 11:11 PM
In my humble opinion, the biggest reason to use GNU/Linux over anything else (be it Windows or OSX) is freedom. And I'm not talking about free as in no price, I mean freedom as in liberty.

In my mind a computer is a computer. It's a tool to help you get things done (or waste time if you like). All operating systems will help you do that with varying degrees of security and functionality. However, with a propietary system you don't actually own your computer (at least not the software that runs it) you're leasing it from a company and they can change the terms of the lease or revoke it at any time.

I liken it to buying a car, but having the manufacturer say "you can drive this, but you can't open the hood or modify it in any way. But we can make any changes we want, at any time, and we may or may not let you know."

With GNU/Linux you own your computer software and can do whatever you want with it (for better or worse). It's freedom. And with freedom comes personal responsibility.

The only other thing I have to say on the subject is this. A benelovant master is still a master and will put their interests ahead of yours.

staf0048
November 24th, 2009, 11:27 PM
Have you ever actually read the EULA (End User License Agreement) of Windows software?

Here's just one example of their restrictions on what you do with your computer and their software. Remember, you agreed to this, so it is legally binding if you use Windows.



8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights.

You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.

mivo
November 25th, 2009, 01:48 AM
The same conditions apply to pretty much all commercial software, music, movies, the content of books, and so on.

timsdeepsky
November 25th, 2009, 02:40 AM
I think Ubuntu Linux is great....I dual boot only because XP came in my system 4 years ago....I've used Linux for the last three years and When this system wears out,,i will not buy a system with Windows anymore....No more virus protection racket for me....

RFXCasey
November 25th, 2009, 05:30 AM
I generally don't now, the lack of viruses is nice and so is the configurability though it also makes it much more complicated. But to be honest windows is much more user friendly then Ubuntu (my opinion) and Ubuntu has a loooooong way to go before it is nice and polished. A lot of the apps are pretty raw too. Not to mention it can be extremely fiddley at times to get certain things working correctly.

jwflammer
November 25th, 2009, 12:39 PM
One word, "Freedom!!!!!!" And no i did not see Brave Hart i would rather quote Tyler Durden.

shaunsmith_99
November 26th, 2009, 07:00 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?



I'm working on an MS/PhD in Statistics and Engineering - Linux is the language of the trade. If they had a reliable release of SAS for linux, I'd Switch 100%..

NightHawk877
November 26th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I chose to run Ubuntu exclusively on my laptop because I noticed that I got whatever I am working on done in Windows or Ubuntu. Why bother dual booting when you can complete tasks in either OS. I am not going 100% Ubuntu on my desktop because that is my gaming rig. Ubuntu is also on there, but I don't use it as much.

Smittysmit
November 26th, 2009, 05:15 PM
I first tried Linux of various distro's 7 years ago. Later I stuck with Ubuntu and each version only gets better. My audio comes from the SP/DIF which had to be configured...then came 9.10 and it was automatic (true PNP). Not worrying about anti virus is great. I have had to clean up several machines at work that were infected with "Anti-Virus 2009"

You cant compare the eye-candy between windows & Linux. Compiz blows everything else away. The screensavers are top notch in Linux (my fav's are "Hufo's Tunnel & Lattice)

I still boot to XP, but rarely. A couple of issues I have are finding the best scanner and software comparable to Paper-Port.

They say that Ubuntu is free but it still cost me 25 cents for a blank CD.

ranch hand
November 26th, 2009, 05:34 PM
I first tried Linux of various distro's 7 years ago. Later I stuck with Ubuntu and each version only gets better. My audio comes from the SP/DIF which had to be configured...then came 9.10 and it was automatic (true PNP). Not worrying about anti virus is great. I have had to clean up several machines at work that were infected with "Anti-Virus 2009"

You cant compare the eye-candy between windows & Linux. Compiz blows everything else away. The screensavers are top notch in Linux (my fav's are "Hufo's Tunnel & Lattice)

I still boot to XP, but rarely. A couple of issues I have are finding the best scanner and software comparable to Paper-Port.

They say that Ubuntu is free but it still cost me 25 cents for a blank CD.
I find that most computers have some cost associated with them too.

mivo
November 26th, 2009, 08:49 PM
You cant compare the eye-candy between windows & Linux. Compiz blows everything else away.

It also blows your performance away. Windows 7 actually combines eye candy with functionality, and strikes a nice balance. Compiz, when I first installed it, was really cool -- for a few hours, and then I started to turn off more and more of the eye candy. I was smitten by the cube and used it for a few weeks, until I realised that I am far more productive (work flow, etc.) with a second monitor, so that went too. Compiz is great for Youtube videos, but of limited value in a non-hobbyist setting.

Looking at the GUI design of Mac and Windows, compared to the various Linux offerings, shows, at least to me, that they were and are designed by professionals with access to research resources and money. I don't care all that much for either company, but sometimes having fewer cooks results in a better meal.

I use Linux on two boxes that do qualify as "desktops" in terms of usage (one of them a laptop), but I still don't see the desktop experience on par with what Apple and Microsoft offer in this segment. It's different for servers.

bdaman80
November 30th, 2009, 03:04 AM
I have recently swapped over my old win xp desktop / server to xp-ubuntu dual boot with using ubuntu as the os for the server as it is much more stable, secure, configurable. My laptop is a dual boot Vista - Ubuntu, using ubuntu as much as possible when i am mobile and half the time around the house. The more I use it the harder it is to go back to Vista. Just have a few programs that I am unable to get into Ubuntu (itunes and MS Access)

DishBreak
November 30th, 2009, 04:22 AM
I have recently swapped over my old win xp desktop / server to xp-ubuntu dual boot with using ubuntu as the os for the server as it is much more stable, secure, configurable. My laptop is a dual boot Vista - Ubuntu, using ubuntu as much as possible when i am mobile and half the time around the house. The more I use it the harder it is to go back to Vista. Just have a few programs that I am unable to get into Ubuntu (itunes and MS Access)

Amen to the iTunes...It's silly, but no other option I know of manages podcasts on the desktop and iPod so seamlessly.

I keep a Win7 boot for iTunes, OneNote, and Matlab. I use Ubuntu primarily for writing socket programming for a class on my laptop, and my desktop is an Ubuntu machine.

NightwishFan
November 30th, 2009, 07:25 PM
I know there are programs to manage ipods, such as Gtkpod. Give that a try.

some-what-Gnu-2-networks
December 2nd, 2009, 02:16 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, 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?


Speed, security, software freedom, ease of finding new programs, the linux community and its humor (thanks guys [and girls]), reliability........

Use Wine for your games

dyess002
December 2nd, 2009, 06:21 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?




If all you do is listen to music and play games I can see you not knowing what to do with Ubuntu. As fo me I to have the power of being able to get free software that will do any of the things that bought software will do. Also I have the power to make my computer like I like it to be. For instance if I don't like my windows manager I can log out and log back in with another that suites my needs. Also the BIG thing that I like about Ubuntu is when you plug a printer up or a Bamboo pad it just works. But with Windows you have to have a disc and then you hope it works.


You have to use Ubuntu to appreciate it. Learn some more about it and then write back.

mivo
December 2nd, 2009, 08:31 AM
As fo me I to have the power of being able to get free software that will do any of the things that bought software will do.

All the "big" open source applications have Windows versions as well. This isn't somehow limited to Linux. In fact, commercial games and a couple Go analysis programs aside (that don't have any Linux equivalents, free or commercial), all the software I use on my Windows box is open source or at least free (as in beer).


Also the BIG thing that I like about Ubuntu is when you plug a printer up or a Bamboo pad it just works. But with Windows you have to have a disc and then you hope it works.

Hardware support is the weakest aspect of Ubuntu/Linux. There are plenty of printers out there that do not work at all, and they do work just fine in Windows. That isn't the fault of Linux, but it doesn't change the reality. As for a Bamboo tablet, I plugged in one on a Windows laptop (not mine) and it worked out of the box without requiring any CDs.

Now I'm not saying that everyone should just keep using Windows. I'm only saying people should use whatever works best for them and what they enjoy using. Two of my computers run Linux (Arch, Ubuntu), and the desktop (W7) and netbook (XP) run Windows. Works for me. I can see why people conclude that all they need is either Windows or Linux. I don't feel it can be generalised, either way.

Dr. Freeze
December 2nd, 2009, 08:03 PM
not having to worry about malware and antivirus updates is enough for me to switch

titico
December 2nd, 2009, 11:39 PM
I switched from xp to ubuntu because it is free, you can do a lot more things than you can in Windows. Yo don't need to pay for anything, and it is also a good system to learn about system administration and a bunch of other stuff.

cheers.

ATK
December 2nd, 2009, 11:41 PM
i switched for a few reasons, mostly because my windows hdd took about 5 minutes to load everything before i could even start a program (even though this is probably because iv had it since 2001 and have acquired a lot of programs that i dont even use). another reason is that im pretty cautious about viruses and that sort of stuff and my virus scanner took forever and made my computer horribly slow when it was running (once again i have acquired a lot of files over the years that it had to scan). another main reason was that i like to mess around and experiment with software and operating systems and i didnt want to mess up my windows installation. overall i have had less problems using ubuntu than i had using windows and the problems i did have with ubuntu were mostly because im new to it and dont know everything about it yet.

moody_mark
December 3rd, 2009, 12:17 AM
The reduced threat of Malware and the free-ness of it all :)

TheProphetJonah
December 3rd, 2009, 05:53 PM
Somewhere in there somebody had said the majick word "Camera". I have a few, mostly Sakar products, using the same WinBloze driver. The one that Windows doesn't load unless you jump through all kinds of hoops. Even WITH the install disk or the driver supplied by Sakar via download.

So far I've failed to get it to work in Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu recognizes the device and actually has the driver.

Also, so far, I've failed to get it to work on Win2K. With the software approved by MicroSux and written For Microsux.

There's another thing about it, Security. I picked up a Trojan from an email link to a question about this stupid camera. You know the one, uses an executable named for an old DOS game that nobody even provides anymore, gives you the Blue Screen of Deatth, resets your browser to give you a popup that looks like a windows System Message saying you have thousands of viruses, offers to run a scan... the "scan" being a flash video of a scan that isn't actually taking place, however, (it didn't get that far with me) it's really downloading a file that disables your Windows antivirus. Then encrypts all your personal files.

Yeah, THAT one. Windows failed to pick it up. f-prot didn't fail to pick it up (although it is a difficult beast to remove) and chkrootkit got the (edit: it was a simple word for somebody whose parents weren't married, some people are born that way and others are "Self Made". They worked to achieve the title) clean out of the system.

This is an America-centric joke, google Lizzie Borden to find out, but Windows7 has already been hacked more times than Lizzie Borden's parents.

There's also a trojan that Windows says is malware but the suspicion is that it's a security update that MicroSux put out themselves on the 10th of last month.

M$ denies it of course.

All the definitely Not-Free M$ security software doesn't do a damned thing about it.

I keep a Windows installation in the hopes of porting Mostly Useless Windoze programs to Linux, because the Windo$ fanatics insist that games are a good valid reason to give Bill Gate$ all your money, and of course your freedom to play any games you want on equipment you bought.

X-Box ringing any bells there? But when Windows installs another "security update" and reboots, rather than booting back into Windows I boot into Linux and run fprot and chkrootkit on it.

So far it's worked well for me twice.

Windows still doesn't run the camera....

rfm33428
December 3rd, 2009, 07:25 PM
I choose Ubuntu over windows for a lot of applications. Except when it comes to gaming, Windows is better. I did notice that Ubuntu is growing in support for Windows games. Before I couldn't play Yu-Gi-Oh on Ubuntu, now I can. I only wish that Joey & Kaiba would work also. Playonlinux is a nice addition. I use a Nvidia 9400gt video card & that works much better in Linux than Windows, especially the scaling for flat panel monitors when playing standard video games. When it comes to viruses, adware, malware & such, linux isn't big enough for it to become a threat. I believe & heard from others that they are design to bring down the giant 'Windows.' Have any of you looked through the computer software lately? Everything out there is for Windows. Then you have selected titles for Mac. If your lucky, you might find something that says it will work in Linux too. Until you see copyrighted titles for the 'free' Linux OS more on store shelves & the Windows selection drop, I don't think anyone will try to target the Linux OS.

mivo
December 3rd, 2009, 08:28 PM
I use a Nvidia 9400gt video card & that works much better in Linux than Windows

The fact that this is a low performance card aside, the cited statement is incorrect if both OS installations are properly set up. While Nvidia's Linux driver is pretty good, it lacks some features of the Windows driver.

(This isn't Linux fault, and Nvidia puts more effort into the Linux driver than ATI ever did.)

Chame_Wizard
December 4th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Visblah is screwing up my nephew pc for months,so yesterday I gave them Kubuntu 9.10 "Karla" for dual boot .
Damn,the fastest install I have seen(32 bit version on their Intel dual-core) so far,even faster than my 64 bit single-core pc with 20! full minute.:popcorn:

Marvin666
December 4th, 2009, 06:11 AM
So I'm not giving gates a few $100's to light his cigars on?

pistacoppu
December 4th, 2009, 05:30 PM
it is amazing that you can do the same things, and even more (except gaming), for free. :guitar:
And if you have to use OpenFOAM you need linux.
I'm only missing a good 3d cad.

agent-5
December 5th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Hi Forum,

Thought I'd post a reply the this question. I've been using Windows for the last 15 years and I'm now 29. I've been using every version since 3.11 and am currently on Windows 7.

I work as an ICT Lecturer in a local college and our entire infrastructure is based on Windows. I've always wanted to get into Linux and whilst in Uni started with a very early version of SuSE. Back then there was hardly any support for any hardware and Windows was more supported so I stuck with MS.

Not being big headed or anything but I'm pretty much a guru when it comes to Windows and feel that I've learned as much as there is to learn. There's no new challenges or problems and I can pretty much do things with my eyes shut. Hence Linux... it's a whole new experience for me and will give me a lot more challenges to overcome. I've just finished my installation of Ubuntu for the sole reason I think that Linux offers far more opportunities and advantages for the user. Software is free, support is free, it's faster, cleaner and IMHO much cooler :D

I've also just got an HTC Hero, to hack that you need to know your way around Linux.

So, a big hello to everyone on the forum! I hope you don't mind another n00b on the scene!

Agent-5.

crtlbreak
December 6th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Hi Forum,

Thought I'd post a reply the this question. I've been using Windows for the last 15 years and I'm now 29. I've been using every version since 3.11 and am currently on Windows 7.

............

So, a big hello to everyone on the forum! I hope you don't mind another n00b on the scene!

Agent-5.

And a great big welcome from the ubuntu community .... hope you settle in and enjoy all that there is to offer .....:D ):P

meditatingfrog
December 12th, 2009, 06:20 AM
To learn computer science.

quinnten83
December 12th, 2009, 09:45 AM
As for a Bamboo tablet, I plugged in one on a Windows laptop (not mine) and it worked out of the box without requiring any CDs.



That is huge @$$ lie.
I own a bamboo one and if you plug it in,it only has mouse functionality.
After installing the drivers in Vista I was able to use it as a tablet.
In windows 7 RC,i had a heck of a time with it, because win7 kept telling me the drivers weren't working. Even now that I use a Win7 enterprise, programs still keep telling me there is a problem with the driver, despite the fact that I repeatedly installed the latest driver.
plug the damn thing in ubuntu, and it works immediately as a tablet.
what doesn't work is the eraser(which won't work in windows either) and bringing up the menu screen bij pressing the pen on the tablet and I am sure that that can be configured.
I am sorry if I reacted so heavily on your remark, it's just that i got so much functionality out of it in Vista and I am disappointed in how it works in windows7.
And my bamboo 1 has worked fine ever since gutsy.

quinnten83
December 12th, 2009, 09:57 AM
Amen to the iTunes...It's silly, but no other option I know of manages podcasts on the desktop and iPod so seamlessly.


Perhaps because Apple wrote it themselves????
You know the guys with intimate knowledge of the hardware and such...?

omskates
December 12th, 2009, 10:23 AM
. I've just finished my installation of Ubuntu for the sole reason I think that Linux offers far more opportunities and advantages for the user. Software is free, support is free, it's faster, cleaner and IMHO much cooler :D.
Welcome! :D I don't post often because I seem to find most answers to my questions pretty quick by just searching forums. If that fails then I post and someone says "just do this and this" & voila fixed. So the community makes a big difference for me and I find myself wanting to give back.

My wife & I have had Ubuntu for 8 years now and there's no PC needs of ours not met by it. The philosophy is very sound. Many take their Windows for granted 'cause it is usually pre-installed and someone has spent all the time it takes to match drivers to the hardware. More hardware is likely to work straight away out of the box in most cases with an Ubuntu install.

Most people working here at the hospital with me don't realize that most applications they chart or monitor patients with are Linux running from Linux servers to Win XP desktops via VM-Ware. I don't like to get into the flaming debates over "which OS", there's too many of those and each OS has their own good with the bad. Just want to give a big welcome and encouragement to you and anyone taking the time to try Linux out.:D

mivo
December 12th, 2009, 10:44 AM
My wife & I have had Ubuntu for 8 years now and there's no PC needs of ours not met by it.

The first Ubuntu version was released in October 2004.

omskates
December 12th, 2009, 10:44 AM
..........plug the damn thing in ubuntu, and it works immediately as a tablet.
.Perhaps the driver was already present on that particular Windows machine? My Tablet PC Wacom Pen works out of the box with Ubuntu 9.10, the screen rotation requires an open source driver.
One of the most unbiased reviews of installing Windows vs Ubuntu: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/27/ubuntu-koala-windows7-review

omskates
December 12th, 2009, 10:52 AM
The first Ubuntu version was released in October 2004.
LOL, thankyou, my wife points out my inaccuracies too:D Must have been Debian before that, can't quite remember as it was a friend who introduced me to Linux & subsequently did the installs,tweaking etc for a while. In any case I'm not likely to migrate away from Linux as I love it too much:)

mivo
December 12th, 2009, 12:28 PM
Hey, you did make me look it up. :p I was thinking, "Hmm, has it been so long already?", and then I went to check. My first Linux experience was Debian, too, but then I switched to FreeBSD for a couple years before picking up Ubuntu. Now it's Arch and Ubuntu, and two Windows boxes. Some day I'll "consolidate" my machines and only use two. :)

Chame_Wizard
December 13th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Perhaps the driver was already present on that particular Windows machine? My Tablet PC Wacom Pen works out of the box with Ubuntu 9.10, the screen rotation requires an open source driver.
One of the most unbiased reviews of installing Windows vs Ubuntu: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/27/ubuntu-koala-windows7-review

nice :lolflag:

omskates
December 17th, 2009, 07:15 AM
Just got this message on facebook from my sister
So occasionally I study at Starbucks, usually near my school which happens to be near Bellevue's MS campus. Every single time some Microsoft dude comes and sits by me, shifts in his seat a while and keeps looking over (to which I pretend to not notice as I'm extremely busy), after 10-15 minutes they usually say this line to me, "Sorry to intrude, but I see you are running Ubuntu on your PC...I work at Microsoft..." Mostly I feel like it is an intro way to hit on me, or perhaps I'm just vain and they really give a crap why I'm running this instead of crappy Vista. Me: "Yah, I like it way better than Windows."

Chame_Wizard
December 17th, 2009, 05:25 PM
Just got this message on facebook from my sister

Your sister owned M$. :guitar:

yazmonium
December 18th, 2009, 07:06 AM
I managed to get some Windows games running through wine. I think ubuntu is for the computer hobbyist. Its for someone who want to learn something about how computers work rather than just using it as an appliance, tool, or entertainment center. I also think gnu\linux is good for children. They pick up technology faster than adults do and if I had linux rather than windows in my 1st Aptiva, I think I would have been a developer or a hacker rather than an accountant. That would be an interesting study huh? Occupation correlated with early operating systems.

kristian.kroflin
December 18th, 2009, 12:15 PM
proper install routine + language and keyboard language is easy to choose + no drivers to install (except for the graphics card - but it notified me automatically and gave me the right choice) and the way of choosing the software via synaptic (or the software center) + the preinstalled software + stability.

hsweet
December 19th, 2009, 09:19 PM
It works better, is free, and it works better. A little redundant :)

I've installed XP where it has run ok for a day until I install the service packs, add some required anti virus anti spyware firewall and all the other stuff. Then it cra.....w......l....lll..sssssssss

Then a few months later, it has died and it's time to start again. To be fair, I've had better luck with it at work (and I set it up there too, so it's not my ignorance and the IT folks know how to do it right.)

And being a cheap *******, I resent having to keep on paying for upgrades that don't improve anything. I like being able to do heavy computing on old crappy machines that would not even dream of running Vista or 7. (For instance, I teach in a lab of 20 10 year old machines running LTSP. The computers are from the Windows 2000/ME era and run pretty much anything I can throw at them including Blender!)

And growing up in the 60's I resent DRM, "Windows Genuine Advantage", and all that other crap. The advantage is for Microsoft, at my expense.

And growing up in the 60's I could care less about the gaming that is important to some of y'all. (I'm not a teeny, Do the math :) )

I am able to to CAD, CAM, graphics, web design, electronics, programming, music and everything else I can dream up with Linux solo and with my students (I teach high school)

mivo
December 19th, 2009, 11:11 PM
And growing up in the 60's I could care less about the gaming that is important to some of y'all. (I'm not a teeny, Do the math :)

What does age have to do with gaming? I grew up in the 70s, so I'm obviously not a teen either, and I have been video gaming ever since I was one. :)

glnerd
December 20th, 2009, 01:13 AM
ubuntu is easier..definitely more fun. if your a gamer, windows. if your a business man/nerd/geek..........then linux. its just so much better.

ranch hand
December 20th, 2009, 01:51 AM
What does age have to do with gaming? I grew up in the 70s, so I'm obviously not a teen either, and I have been video gaming ever since I was one. :)
Yup, that's when you whiny young folk went down the tubes.

Get out and get some fresh air. If you can find some.

mivo
December 20th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Yup, that's when you whiny young folk went down the tubes. Get out and get some fresh air. If you can find some.

Regrets? :)

(I appreciate being counted to the "young folk", though! Back when I started working in the IT/gaming/community industry, everyone was older than me -- often by twenty, thirty and more years. Today, many of my co-workers and customers are younger than me and a few of the younger adults could even be my kids. There is a lot to learn from them though. They have vision, dreams, ideals and above all: the enthusiasm that so many lose when life turns into routine.)

omskates
December 20th, 2009, 10:27 AM
I managed to get some Windows games running through wine. I think ubuntu is for the computer hobbyist. Its for someone who want to learn something about how computers work rather than just using it as an appliance, tool, or entertainment center.Ubuntu's for everybody.

I think I would have been a developer or a hacker rather than an accountant.You still can.:P

omskates
December 20th, 2009, 10:32 AM
ubuntu is easier..definitely more fun. if your a gamer, windows. if your a business man/nerd/geek..........then linux. its just so much better.I'm so out of the PC gaming loop, aren't the consoles better anyway? In any case if that's the best card Windows pulls out, being a game console, I'm good with that.:P

madmax.santana
December 20th, 2009, 10:44 AM
Hmmm. Ubuntu over Windows!!!

Look, no offense to all Widnows fans out there but if you look closely, Windows was a big flop... Although Windows 98 and Xp were well accepted because at that time Linux was not simply as better. But after Windows XP, every try by Microsoft to redeem itself in OS business has gone off the point. Windows Longhorn was a big flop. Windows Vista was so buggy it didn't sell for even one full year. (However if you have a major share in software market you could always tyrannize open source campaign and force Hardware companies to keep you standards instead of more generalized standards because that's what MS does.)

Anyways, now they have launched Windows 7 and I have been able to use it a few times. What I noticed was, hardware requirements are not helping any more. And apart from performance, you could always tell the difference between sloppy Windows graphics and gleaming crystal graphics of Ubuntu... And after all, the new kernel of Windows greatly resembles Linux Core (is it almost exact copy? ;))

The crux of the matter is, good days of MS are over now. Linux, and particularly Ubuntu and its derivations are being more accepted these days. Around me, I have seen at least half a dozen users in past year who are fed up with Windows and are telling me that they want to switch over to Linux.

mivo
December 20th, 2009, 02:41 PM
Yeah, Madmax, that explains why Linux has a desktop share of less than 1%. It had the same market share already two years before you joined this forum. ;) Vista was terrible, and Ubuntu failed to benefit from it (Apple did, however). 9.10, when it was really important to put out something that can go toe to toe with the beautiful and very well performing Windows 7, felt like a beta release on my machine. I had to revert back to 9.04, which was a first time experience for me.

The problem is not what MS does or does not do. It has no impact on Linux on the desktop. Ubuntu's issues are all home-made, and they have been discussed ad nauseum. I have some hopes for the next LTS, though.

oldefoxx
December 20th, 2009, 09:08 PM
I got the first of my training on computer systems and began working on their support back in 1965, and we are talking about military systems here, not your typical data punch operations of the day. I stayed with it, moving from mainframes to micros when they began to make a real appearance. I never thought I would live to see a time when I would ever be able to have my own computer, so programmable calculators were awesome to me when they hit the market. I guess I've owned about 30-odd computers since then, and have worked on hundreds more. After all, that was all part of my job in my Systems Engineer role. I even took courses on Unix, but we always used the Unix clone called Linux because it was a no-cost item and useful enough for the purpose.

As Open Source, and yet still capable of doing big game stuff like it's commercial rivals, I was intrigued with Linux, but other than make it available as an alternative OS on the PCs I maintained, I was not that much into it. And as became the rule, GUI became the most sought after aspect in the PC market. And that was not Linux, not back then. Some people wish it were still that way, but they are fewer in number now.

As a long time Windows maintainer, you would not believe me if I choose to reiterate all they ways in which Windows just doesn't cut it in my book, and how labor intensive it must be for inhouse technicians to get Windows installed on new model PCs and all the evident bugs worked out before the first one ships out the door. I mean trying to get Windows to fly right, even at all, can appear to be almost impossible at certain points in the process. Just be glad that most of you bought new PCs with Windows preinstalled so that you were spared all that. But you probably learned some of it later when it began to show problems like running slowly or getting the dreaded BSOD (you know, the cryptic dark, blue screen with white lettering that said something failed, and a dump was being made, with only the suggestion to try it again, and if it still failed, seek expert help).

But those are only some of the surface scourings, and you don't see what a nightmare it is to try and solve other riddles that are everywhere under the outer gleam of polished graphical code. Here is one example that everyone faces and probably thinks is natural. Ever stick a blank CD or a defective on in the drive then try to go to My Computer (or just Computer in some cases) and check the contents of, say, your C: drive? Note that waving flashlight over a partially obscured folder laying flat? That is to take your attention away from how long it takes just to get to where you can take a look at any of the drives or their contents. Does it really take that long? Yes, if you are stupid enough to decide to try and scan all of the drives first, before letting the user see any of them. So you sit and wait, and after awhile, that little flashlight isn't telling you anything except this might go on for awhile yet. You see, the flashlight is the way they hid the fact that they had dome something stupid, and did not want to go back and fix it. The right way is to instantly show you all the known drives, and then only scan the one you choose to look at, Instead, most of the PC users around the world are wasting a lot of time collectively just trying to get from here to there because of this stupid oversight in the way that Windows works.

Know how really stupid this is? Well, since every version of Windows does the same thing, I guess they decided what works is good enough, even if it is somewhat stupid, because nobody bothers to complain. Instead, you just hope the next version that comes out will work better somehow, some way.

Remember the movie about Forrest Gump? The line that comes to mind is when he quotes his mother as saying, "Stupid is, as Stupid does". Seems somewhat appropriate here.

But this bit of stupidity just gets worse as you add more drives and partitions, or do more work with USB Drives or burn and use more CDs and DVDs. Those delays just seem to take longer and longer. But you can live with it, because it is Windows, right?

Yep. Stupid is as stupid does. She had it right.

rosier
December 20th, 2009, 11:34 PM
For me who does some IT support I cant quite get free from windows- I have apps that just cant run on Linux or is problematic to load- wine etc..
Exporting from quickbooks and trying to get synce to run properly on my PDA is just a nightmare- bluetooth is problematic. Ma and Pa wouldnt bother googling?!?? They want to point and click and start. Yes you cant have you pie and eat it too, but theres got to be that balance to entice and try and buy in.
Linux has lots of potential- no doubt. The security and spyware thing- yeah its great.
But If you get hooked on outlook and your own accounting software, then with linux- the process of converting is a bit much for most people- I run Linux side by side with my windows box just because of the above reasons. If I can go with Linux the full hog i would and I'm trying to.
Its a great lwearning curve to say the least and with better software/driver support will grow.
Theres trade-off on both sides I think the main thing for most consumers is that its got to be easy- Linux has come along way with its desktops but connectivity with the gadgets that are deigned primarily for win-doze boxes is a challenge- ring up your local IT customer services and ask them to help you configure your brother MFC to your Ubuntu Box and he will advise you to read the manual....you will end up chasing your tail.

omskates
December 21st, 2009, 07:30 AM
in response to rosier:Perhaps start asking the manufacturers of those gadgets to open source their drivers? Or even ask Microsoft to end the restrictions and lobbying designed to prevent drivers from being open sourced could be good start to those problems.
Yeah, Madmax, that explains why Linux has a desktop share of less than 1%. It had the same market share already two years before you joined this forum. ;) While I appreciate the realistic critique in the rest of your post I'd like to point out that it is far to often that market sales numbers are pulled out as a card in defense of windows during these interesting debates. Amongst the spoon fed masses of our capitalistic society sales numbers are NOT the go-to source when reflecting the quality of a product. It is so far too often that very high quality products, services, and artists go largely unnoticed until someone or some corporate body with a whole pile of money up their a*#@s decide to back it. I for one do not plan on mindlessly following behind the subjectiveness of those people or corporate bodies. Every operating sytem has its strengths and weaknesses which is why you see more & more integration via VMWare. I personally can't see any good reason whatsoever to pay out too much money for an operating system that constrains me while Ubuntu does everything I need it to.......but that's just me.

oldefoxx: Thank God for you!

mivo
December 21st, 2009, 03:42 PM
I personally can't see any good reason whatsoever to pay out too much money for an operating system that constrains me while Ubuntu does everything I need it to.......but that's just me.

I was responding to a market share comment. :) I agree that it is hard to get exact figures because not every Windows license is used (the two boxes I use Linux on came with a Windows license each), but also because there are many people who run a pirated version of Windows. Those, too, add to the market share, at least as far as the number of potential buyers for Windows-based software and services is concerned.

I agree that there is no need to spend money on something that you don't need. I need and want Windows 7 on my main desktop, both for work and recreation (i.e. the Go database/analysis software I use every day does not work well in Wine), and I am pleased with how well it works. XP works better on my netbook than any Linux I have tried, so I use it on there. However, my other desktop runs Linux and my old laptop does as well. The laptop runs much faster with Arch than it did with XP, and the other desktop serves its purpose just fine with Ubuntu (it didn't work well with 9.10, though - so, reverted and am waiting for the next LTS).

oldefoxx
December 21st, 2009, 09:21 PM
Some very good points made, but some of you seem to miss a strategic point: That is, we are already in an age where you can have both at once. I'm not talking about dual boot solutions, but they work too, for any who can be content with either OS and its applications at the exclusion of the other for some period of time, And no, I am not really addressing another option, which is to have both running at once on different PCs, and then switch back and forth with a KVM, and to exchange and share files over your local network, but that works for some people as well.

No, I am going at the heart of the matter, of running multiple OSes and applications simultaneously on one PC, then just switching back and forth at your pleasure, and being able to share between them. Yes, I am referring to the Virtual Machine (VM) concept, which already is among us in many forms, some with a price tag, yet even among these there are some that come gratus to individuals. Some go to the high end, which many regard as the one named VMWare, but they did not have exactly what I sought, and I went with a find product called VirtualBox.

I think we are still at the early stage in VM solutions, because the main premise is to have your primary OS run the VM software as an application, and the VM software then provides support for a virtual machine environment that individual OSes can be installed in and run as clients, each with its own set of applications. You can do this even with a single core PC, and depending on what you want to do in this mode, may get by with as little as 512 mb of RAM. A gb or RAM makes it fat city, and you can really do a lot. But there are some limitations for the clients, most deliberate, that may not suit all. For one thing,
the clients are each given their own virtual drive, and if you are going to have a number of clients installed, you need for disk space can go up dramatically in order to provide each its own reasnably sized virtual drive space.

So what are we really missing at this point? A number of things possibly. For instance, clients are not that great at game play, and for that reason alone many people feel that they still have to run Windows as their host or primary OS. Me, I'd rather use a Linux distro as host because it acts better, is less demanding, and is more secure from external exploits. And since you put less demand on Windows when running as a client, you may be pleased to see that it runs better, partly because as client it is protected by the host and the VM environment, so you don't need a lot of additional programs to protect it.

But what I think is really missing is focus on multiple core PCs, where each could be running in its own space as host, creating more of a peer to peer environment. These could converse amongst themselves or share peripherals and files, and some might even take on the job of servers. If you have more cores than OSes to run, the extras could be doing maintenance and verification tasks, or checking for software updates. If you lack enough cores for everything to run at once, one or two might then become not just host, but a VM manager running as host as well and running two or more OSes and their applications under its guidance. But wouldn't that mean that these last clients will run much slower than the rest? Not necessarily. That VMHost could hand off some of the client tasks to the other cores, which would split the load more evenly all around.

In fact, what you would most likely end up with is a PC with a native VMHost spread over all its cores, under which you can install multiple clients as it suits you, and it will just manage them all on your behalf. If the VMHost is designed to make good use of interconnections such as the internet, you might end up with a fleet of PCs all working together, and as you move from one to the next, they all behave and appear exactly as you want them to, but you can focus on any one as though you were seated in front of it, even though you might be half a world away from the PC where it was actually started. See, as long as there is great distance between you and the PC, there is a time lag that will make it slow. But a VMHost could more things around so that the place where you are is the place where those jobs will run for a time, and this move-around swap-around could all be automatic.

In other words, the possibilites seem almost endless. Now it might be that such innovation could come from the parent of Windows, but most likely any VMHost from that source will be specific to its product line.
In other words, if you want the freedom to experience all that is out there, you are going to have to go with the Open Source community to a large extent. So one of the questions you might want to ask yourself is, do I want to leave and come back later (if I ever decide I should), or do I want to stay with what is out there now and be drawn along as things get better? You leave now, how much cost are you willing to absorb (and there will be costs associated with sticking with Windows), and how much relearning am I going to be willing to undergo later (because I wanted to make it easiest on myself now).

Don't forget. I am speaking from a near lifetime of experience. And you can see which way I am leaning. In fact, the only reason I stuck with Windows after my exposure to Linux was in terms of the nature of the job I had and the services I needed to perform on the behalf of others. They used Windows, I could not change that, so I was stuck with it as well. Still true to some extent, since I still help others, but for myself it is becoming less about Windows all the time.

sbelz79
December 21st, 2009, 09:27 PM
Apparently my hard-drive is partially fried and neither windows nor Linux will install on it...

Did you nuke your HDD with DBAN? If there was physical damage to the drive, this won't help. But if the damage was just to the data, it will and you should be able to install any OS you want.

sbelz79
December 21st, 2009, 09:37 PM
I personally like the Songbird music player- which you can get for Windows or Ubuntu. I've used it in both, though I've been using Ubuntu exclusively since Windows kicked the bucket on me. I don't really play games, so I see no reason I should ever use Windows again.

It's not like I paid for Windows anyway (um...by that I mean I got it for my birthday...cough- hey look over there!) but I'd much rather use an OS that is developed by the user community and given away for free than proprietary software made by people who are only interested in world domination.

Also, anyone else think the "Windows 7 was my idea" campaign is astoundingly hilarious?

mivo
December 21st, 2009, 09:55 PM
It's not like I paid for Windows anyway (um...by that I mean I got it for my birthday...cough- hey look over there!) but I'd much rather use an OS that is developed by the user community and given away for free

Actually, the Linux core components are, for the most part, developed by companies and employed developers. The contributions from programmers who truly do unpaid work in their spare time is small. This is also why Linux doesn't have many of the desktop issues when used in a server environment: the server market is what these companies are chiefly interested in. In a way, it could possibly be said that Linux on the desktop is a by-product.

In the end, it's still about money, though. Unless you live at home or ride the welfare system, food, rent, electricity, etc aren't free. I don't work for free, so I don't expect others to work for free either. :)

sbelz79
December 21st, 2009, 10:51 PM
Actually, the Linux core components are, for the most part, developed by companies and employed developers. The contributions from programmers who truly do unpaid work in their spare time is small. This is also why Linux doesn't have many of the desktop issues when used in a server environment: the server market is what these companies are chiefly interested in. In a way, it could possibly be said that Linux on the desktop is a by-product.

In the end, it's still about money, though. Unless you live at home or ride the welfare system, food, rent, electricity, etc aren't free. I don't work for free, so I don't expect others to work for free either. :)
I know that pro developers do most of the actual development for Ubuntu, and that they're a for-profit business trying to make money.
The difference is that Linux-based systems are totally open to the user, so those with knowhow can modify their OS however they want (I'm not one of those people- but thanks to this forum I can rely on help from those who do know what they're doing).
And while Ubuntu is out to make money, they're doing it in such a way that their users recieve maximum benefit- in that they don't have to pay for the product. How freakin' cool is that?

I mean, in my mind that's a huge evolutionary leap foreword in the evolution of capitalism. A company that offers a product for free and only charges for customer support for those who want or need it.

And its encouraging that producers of digital media- namely a very small handful of musicians and film makers- are taking an open-source approach to their distribution.

Proponents of the old paradigm of trading data for money are resistant to change- but all digital data is de facto free whether it's copyrighted or not. Companies like Canonical and Google, and artists like Trent Reznor or filmmaker Hanna Sköld are realizing that you can make money while offering something freely to the world; without owning what you produce in a traditional sense. It's freakin' beautiful.

mister_anon
December 21st, 2009, 11:10 PM
As an active everyday protest for Nihilism.

mivo
December 21st, 2009, 11:14 PM
I mean, in my mind that's a huge evolutionary leap foreword in the evolution of capitalism. A company that offers a product for free and only charges for customer support for those who want or need it.

Linux has a desktop market share of around 1%, and it has been that way for the past two years (no one has exact figures, though), so this system doesn't work all that successfully as long as Linux on the desktop is in the current state. Ubuntu is one Linux distro among many, and while it lowered the entry level (in terms of required knowledge), Canonical/Ubuntu do not give back much code or developer time to the whole Linux community. RedHat, Novel, Sun, the Debian project, even Google - those are the real contributors that enable a user-friendl-y/ier distro like Ubuntu.

The concept of providing a product for free and charging for service isn't really new, though. It only seems to work to a certain degree because at some point the number of "leechers" will too greatly outnumber the number of "contributors" (paying customers). "More users" does also mean "more paying users", but it seems that costs skyrocket unproportionally faster. You'll notice that Canonical removed offers like free CDs (shipit) for everyone who asks, we'll have a commercial software store in one of the 2010 Ubuntu releases, Ubuntu One is also a commercial service (beyond the very basic offer), etc. Money always has to come from somewhere.

I'm not criticising this, though. As I said, I don't work for free, so I can't expect others to. (This isn't entirely true, since throughout my professional life so far I have always volunteered time and experience in one form or another, but this was only possibly because of paying jobs that took care of my bills.)

sbelz79
December 21st, 2009, 11:51 PM
As an active everyday protest for Nihilism.

I don't see what Ubuntu has to do with Nihilism. But the open-source model is an anarchistic one- in that it lacks the typical hierarchical relationship between producer and consumer that puts the rights of the seller above the buyer by allowing the seller to completely dictate the terms of the purchase agreement, a relationship that developed with the advent of fixed prices replacing haggling.

oldefoxx
December 22nd, 2009, 01:09 AM
I gather then that some of you have such a limited understanding of Open Sourcing that you deem it a possible or likely failure? I'm not so certain of that. Consider it a swap meet where the use of money is banned. Why would you do that? You ask. Because money is not the best determinant of need, ability, or willingness. Put the matter on a totally different footing, and you will find some rather interesting results.

The Unix community is a closed community, and inhibitive to many who would want to do more. Linux has largely replaced it, not just because it is free, but because it is wide open to innovation and shared efforts.
You can try out different things, make your own determinations of what works best, submit your own bug reports, get the existing source code for yourself if that interested, and almost everything you do is somehow associated with an open community free to advise, suggest, and test your findings.

Not even pausing with the Unix community (which, after all, can do much the same thing by participating with Linux as well), but going right for either Windows or the Mac OS, you show me another environment where so much can be achieved simply on a volunteer basis.

You think every company and paid programmer that does anything with Linux expects to profit directly against the Linux community at some point? It is more likely that they see that they can drastically cut their overhead when competing against their competition that may be going for a Windows-based or Mac-based solution. Development costs are likely lower, less concern about patent infringment, able to reuse existing code if found, lots of willing Alpha and Beta testers out there, and all they have to concent to is letting a portion of their code go into the Open Source movement.

Their potential market can also benefit, since costs associated with adding networking, PCs, an operating system per PC, and such means less drain on them if focused around Linux, since there are way fewer costs involved. Also fewer dictates from the hardware and software providers, since there is no lock down on the equipment of software to be used. That all adds up.

Red Hat took it two steps further. It became responsible for its version of Linux, freeing the customer of another concern, and it really profits through its service agreements that it makes with those customers. That hits two other areas that Windows was exploiting in its claims of the time.

What else does Linux do? It allows many individuals to go as far into this area as they want, without forcing them to look for specific school programs, or even to lay out major sums for classes, books, instructors, even eventual certification. All they really need is a working PC and access to the internet. They may not know what they are looking for at the start, but the information is all over once they decide what to search for. Those that hope to reach a point where they can profit from what they learn have got a problem to deal with. Up to this point I was equating the whole matter to a cashless swap meet. But now this intent means shifting over to a cash-based premise, putting the matter outside the Open Source area. They can still come back, of course, but we all know that trying to make money at this game is difficult, and the question may be more of what are you then prepared to move on to.

Instead of making money from it directly, it might be more a matter of deciding what you can use it all for. Maybe it will serve as sort of a mental tool for other purposes. I really learned the process of logical thinking through my computer studies, and I have applied this many times over in my life, even to the decision of whether to extend my Navy enlistment for additional technical schooling or not (I did).

Look, you read what I write, I read what you write. Are either of us getting paid for this? I think not. It's rather our way of participating. Others who can or have done more might participate at a higher level, just because they can. You might see where you feel that you could make extra money if you could do as much, but how you see their efforts is not the way they necessarily see them. After all, if you ever benefitted from what others did, you might want to make some payback in kind if you are able to do so.

mivo
December 22nd, 2009, 01:39 AM
Look, you read what I write, I read what you write. Are either of us getting paid for this? I think not.

If I read and wrote here for 12 hours a day, and didn't get paid for it, I couldn't do it. Likewise, if I worked only 2-3 hours at my job per day, I could not get the work done and they needed to employ at least four other people who also worked 2-3 hours a day. They all would have to have a paying job (a different one) in order to be able to buy food, pay rent and bills, etc.

So, the money has to come from somewhere. Sure, you can create something entirely based on volunteer work. Having run various volunteer programs over the past two decades, though, I have learned one thing: volunteers are not guaranteed to be reliable and you cannot expect X hours of work, X lines of code, etc from them.

omskates
December 22nd, 2009, 05:03 AM
I was responding to a market share comment. :) OK, thankyou:) the Windows market share numbers really don't surprise me but they don't sway me either. I understand if you have needs that only a certain OS can meet and that's what I always ask someone faced with the prospect of purchasing a Microsoft product at home, "Do you really need it? Is there something it can do for you that Linux can't?" mivo, you explore other Operating Systems and distros thus not boxing yourself in with just Windows and that is awesome. You also obviously have real needs for Windows and that is perfectly respectable. I appreciate your response, thanks.

...Yes, I am referring to the Virtual Machine (VM) concept,...
I agree, most likely this concept will continue to accelerate especially in corporate environments where custom applications are needed and basing those on open source is an excellent option. Most of the charting, patient tracking, data processing, medication dosing at my workplace is based on OpenSuse or Ubuntu but running through VMWare on old XP desktops. Several are Microsoft as well but all co-exist on XP desktops running from Linux servers. One does not need to abandon their Windows or OSX to gain productivity with Linux.

omskates
December 22nd, 2009, 05:06 AM
If I read and wrote here for 12 hours a day You work 12 hours a day all week?:shock:

I have lots of down time at work, I could annoy you guys all night on this thread:P

mivo
December 22nd, 2009, 02:22 PM
You work 12 hours a day all week?:shock: I have lots of down time at work, I could annoy you guys all night on this thread:P

Right now, yes. A number of projects going on that somehow ended up in my lap while I wasn't watching. My alleged "days off" seem to have been piling up on the "oh, when we are done you can just take a week or two off" list. ;) But there's plenty of downtime, which is usually when I post, or while waiting for something/someone to finish.

I wonder if Canonical would hire full-time Café posters!

oldefoxx
December 23rd, 2009, 12:00 AM
The fact that any of you are here to read postings like mine and then respond indicates that you came looking for something. Otherwise, why bother? I don't know what it is that you seek, any more than any other person does, but it also means that you felt (or hoped) that it would not be wasted time. Is that a matter of volunteerism? Since you are not getting paid for it, some might insist that it is. But it could also just be a matter of trying to find a place to participate, to be part of something going on. On the other hand, it could be that you tire of being left to your own broodings, since nobody else shows much interest in what you are into, so you come here where you are free to express yourself. And yes, that also counts as participation.

I consider that a big plus for Linux, no matter what distribution you are currently into. Have you found as much interest anywhere in any flavor of Windows? I haven't, but then I haven't been looking there as of late. I made my own decision about Windows, so to me that would be a greater waste of my time. Stick to XP exclusively if you want, but your trail end is almost in sight. Then where do you go? Yes, you can continue on that path, regardless, but is that the best move to make?

To me, the real thinkers are the ones that accept the inevitable and work to go beyond by the best means available. I may not be totally happy with getting away from some aspects of remaining with Windows 2000 or XP, but there are other aspects that I am more than glad to veer away from. Many of these have been mentioned before.

Some might ask, but why not Mac then instead? Oh, a total reinvestment in both hardware and software as well, and then held to whatever another provider is prepared to offer? That's a best choice? Not to my way of thinking. Then someone else will argue, yeah, but then you can install and run XP on the Mac platform, so that works too. Hey, if you intend to stick with XP regardless, then what was the real advantage of switching to the Mac? You can't just pick up Linux and maybe a VM Manager from the internet and adding them to what you already have and paid for?

I'm about subject out on this topic. I had thought to go at the BSOD issue with Windows and how screwed up the whole approach that they made to this, and how much more solvent Linux is in this area, but why bother? If you ever had to deal with the Blue Screen of Death, then you know what a bitter pill it can be to deal with. If you haven't dealt with it yet, just give it some more time. Then you will know.

Oh, and those offers to send in a report when you have a failure of some sort? Nobody is going to look at that for you. All they are likely to do is stuff that into a statistical database, so that when they decide what needs to be fixed the most, somewhere down the road, they will just take the one to five highest ranked failures to address, just enough to satisfy some 70 to 80 percent of the reported complaints. That is being cost effective, you see. So years later, and maybe another version or two down the road, your reported problem will finally be addressed and possibly resolved. Nobody there is going to be going for a 100 percent fix of all reported problems in a timely fashion. You want immediate personal attention? Be prepared to fork over something like $100 an hour just to talk to someone in technical support, with no assurance or guarantee that the problem will be fixed or how long it might take. Some suppliers offer free technical support of course, but there is a very noteable exception. Guess who?

JimInLakeland
December 23rd, 2009, 02:34 AM
Basically freedom. You have freedom to do whatever you want with Linux. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, you won't have to pay for the upgrade. There is no professional version with more feature that costs.

Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

+1
Also, no integrated Internet Exploder (a plus for me)
Fully customizable desktop environment.
Ubuntu Software Center
The look and feel of GNOME on Ubuntu is just cleaner and sexier.
The fact that it is 100% free and I can install it on as many systems as I want legally.
If I have to restore a system, I restore files and my system is restored.
The Windows productivity programs that I must use run fine under Wine.

My desktop system is a dual-boot. My Ubuntu drive is for work, surfing, designing and living in the digital world. The Windows drive is only for play although I have not booted into it for sometime(Windows is merely a toy for me). For my gaming, I have been using my Wii more.

oldefoxx
December 23rd, 2009, 07:01 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?

[Groan), you haven't found enough reasons yet on your own? You can't take note of the many affirmative replies already made in this area? Hey, for those that can't sort it out for themselves, and fail to pick it up from those that have, words simply won't do. This will be one of my shortest replies on record.

oldefoxx
December 23rd, 2009, 07:37 PM
That alone makes it worthwhile!!

I wonder how many windows users realize that the Registry, designed initially to speed up things, is one of the greatest drudging found in Windows? Not only that, but the Registry has become a great means for hackers to penetrate Windows and to uncover information you don't want out there.

The Registry is also the chief cause for having to reinstall almost all your Windows applications after trying to repair or restore Windows. That is because the reinstallation does not make an effort to preserve the existing Registry, but just puts it back to a basic configuration.

There are programs that attempt to back up and restore the Registry against this eventuality, but that then depends on you remembering to make a backup at as suitable time, then remembering that you have a backup to try and restore of the Registry.

Another failing of the Registry is that a large number of programs that rely on the Registry and have their own entries in there simply fail to remove all their entries if you uninstall them. So again, you have programs that range through the Registry and try to find things like broken links and simply remove them as a means of improving performance.

Of course you have to know about, locate, download, install, study how to run, run, and probably pay for these additional programs. They become part of the Windows solution, or solution to Windows' weaknesses. And as these additional programs get updated, you may be lured into a subscription scheme where you pay yearly for the latest and greatest version.

Then the minimal backup and restore tools in Windows, and what passes for a Firewall, and ... well, do I need to go on? But apparently many of you see this as just natural, because it is all about Windows and you are used to it by now. And you see anything other than Windows as not being worthwhile because it only gives you back what you already have with whatever version of Windows you settled on. Only the provider of Windows is not satisfied with that, so whatever version you settled on is on a phase out schedule as an inducement to get you to begin all over again with a later and greater version.

But all of you center your attitudes about one of two things: The first is how you see things today, and whether you are reasonably comfortable with that or not. Others look for something that Windows offers that they don't see as prominent in other operating systems, and that seems to boil down to certain types of games. I only into games as a source for relaxing, not as a goal in and of themselves, and for those that only see the moment, you can play catchup down the road or stay in the Windows' groove until the very end. I care less, it's your money and life, not mine.

mamamia88
December 24th, 2009, 02:09 AM
-it's free
-it's faster on older hardware
-it has never been any slower than the day i installed it where windows tends to get much slower after less than a month of install for me
-no trial software and tons of free software that does what i need
-peace of mind from viruses and spyware not saying it 's impossible just don't have to drastically change my surfing patterns nearly as much.
-never have too call tech support when windows fails too activate
-don't have too install all of hps crapware alongside my printer
-compiz effing rocks
-windows is kind of boring in my opinion

oldefoxx
December 24th, 2009, 05:53 AM
I will concede a couple of points in Windows favor, but not by much. First, its generally easier to find drivers for some of your peripherals, but only as long as your version of Windows is still being supported. That might not be a problem where the peripherals and PC date from the same period, but it can be an increasing problem as you either try to make newer peripherals work with an older PC or operating system, or go the other way and try to affix your older peripherals to a newer PC with a more current OS version That is what I refer to when I say not by much.

There is also the fact that Windows does tend to give you a more universal view of things like all your drives in some views, but it also strives to hide some of the contents, such as system files and folders, and it is not real apparent how to circumvent this. It also strives to hide file types by not displaying the extentions of what it refers to as known types, but then you might end up with files of the same apparent name without being able to tell what they are, until you turn this feature off.

Windows' effort to link files by extention to given applications is obviously an add on, and once you have an application designated for a certain type of file, it is not so easy to get rid of that association, unless you know what you are doing. But it is advantageous when set up and working right.

Networking with Windows is a mixed bag. You have to make some key decisions in order to get a connection, and if new at this, you might need some help. If you designate a dial-up connection, then fid out that you need to switch to either cable or DSL, that dial-up setup is going to get in the way until it gets removed. But at least you then have My Network Places to go to and hunt around for a bit. Only setting up the network to start with brings up some other uncertainties. Am I in a domain? What's its name? Does it matter? What's this about a WorkGroup? Is that like being part of a task force on some project? How about if I've been designated to work on five separate projects? Can I put all five down?

But let's say you get pass all that, but can't make a network connection. What's wrong now? Okay, here is a troubleshooter, let's try it. Nope, it's none of the things it told me to check for. Now what? Who do I contact now? Aw heck! This is not worth it. Let's just take it back to the store and forget the whole idea. No wait. Joe has a computer. Maybe he can help. Nah, if the computer is broke, and that might be the problem here, then bothering Joe with it isn't going to work. let's just take it back, like I said. I thought these things were suppose to be easy to use.

Now you do realize I am still talking about Windows here, about a period that you apparently got through okay. But many don't. That is one reason why so many refurbished or reconditioned machines show up on the market. Almost every one started out with some version of Windows on it, but it went back because of some bad experiences by people who did not know what they were in for.

Another aspect of networking with Windows is actually setting one up. You have a basic network connection, but now you have to deal with things like internet protocol, do we need IPX/SPX or NetBIOS, how about NetBEUI, what's with the Network Monitor Driver, Here's something called the DLC Protocal, oh, and File and Printer Sharing, and what would QoS Scheduling be about, then something called Client for Microsoft Networks, and something else called Client Services for Netware. And look at all the questions we are asked when we decide to include one. Why do they do this to us?

Alright, so you somehow get past all that, and things look good, until you decide to add another PC to your fledging network, but they don't hook to each other. So now what? A router? Or a switch? Why do I have to do all that? Okay, for what I've had to spend this far, I guess that isn't too much. Where can I buy one? And that is all there is to it? Oh, I have to buy some more cables too? Now how much will those cost. Never mind, I will just do it, as long as that is all.

I got it all, and I followed the instructions to set it up, but I can't get the two computers to see each other. So what is wrong now? Oh, my first computer, it's running Windows, and so is the second. What version of Windows? How am I suppose to know that? Alright, I can check, but what difference does that make? You mean different versions of Windows can't just work with each other out of the box? That doesn't make any sense.

[Go forward about a year]. Everything is working pretty good now, but every once in awhile my older PC gives me a BSOD, and all I know to do is turn it off and back on, and that usually takes care of it, until the next time. Maybe I ought to think about getting another PC to replace it. The second PC? It's been getting slower for some reason, and I put some software on it that claimed it would clean it up, but I really can't see any improvement. Some people try to tell that I may have some sort of a virus on there, but I don't think so, because it does what I want it to. I'm told that I might be happier with Windows 7, so if I decide to replace the first PC, I guess I will shop for one that has that on it. Sounds like that might be my only real choice anyway.

I hope by reading the above, you see that if memory really serves, getting a handle on Windows was not the coast ride you think it was, and that same memory should show you that coming to terms with Linux is not the fierce uncertain battle you make it out to be. I found it reasonably easy for my Ubuntu notebook to network with my network of PCs running Windows this evening, but now I do have to deal with the fact that I need this notebook to be able to send print jobs to the desktop connected printer as well. That turns out not to be so easy. All I've found so far is a reference to the fact that is a job for samba (but it doesn't say how), or an alternative method that requires installing GhostScript, GSView, and RedMon on the Windows Desktop, then using them to fake a PostScript printer connection that my notebook can work with. I tried to look at Samba first, but it was baffling with no guide to turn to, and there are at least five online descriptions of the GhostScript method, so I went on and downloaded those three tools for later use. RedMon was hard to find, but by searching for RedMon17.zip. my search finally took me to a list of a bunch of download sites for it. It is needed, but is currently being revamped for use with Vista and Win7, so not available at the home site.

Interesting. A fix for the Linux side that isn't well documented, but an alternate procedure where the fix is applied to the Windows side, and has gotten a fair amount of coverage.

As usual, I hope my comments, experiences, and observations serve to help others, because this is about the only Christmas gift you can likely expect from me this year.

Do you realize that we are about to wrap up the first decade into the 21st Century as well? Yes we are, because the first year of the new century was the year 2000, as January 1st, 2000 was the mark for the change over. Of course this presumes there was also a year 0 to mark the occasion when our calendar started, and year zero would then have been the first year. But by all accounts, the first year was year 1, not zero. So one way or another, we come up a year short. But hey, who can argue with popular option, right? Which is the reason why arguing with a bunch of Windows diehards is probably just a waste of time.

Well, time's moving. Gotta go.

Akira Takano
December 24th, 2009, 08:32 AM
I come back after 2 years and this t=hread is still up? wow. its not that i left linux, its just i don't like the forums.

Astrals
December 24th, 2009, 09:30 AM
All i can say is this LINUX vs "WINDOZE" = speaks for it's self.
I have been using linux now for about 3-4 years, yes linux is an education, nearly everything you learnt in windoze has no use in the linux world, so therefore my perspective is learnt from the hard kicks from both sides. I used virtualbox for xp for short time, now all it is used for is distro testing just to see what i like and don't.
If you want to count a a hand full of wine applications into the equation, then that leaves me at a 99.9% windoze free.

My end opinion is this "If i had no choice but to go back to windoze, then I will turn all my systems off at the bloody wall."
Might as well call it terminal failure.
If this upsets any windoze lovers do feel free to moan and carry on to someone else who might listen.

"Once you use linux, learn a few basics, you'll never go back to the windows darkness."
Now that is my favourite saying.