View Poll Results: What does "ready for the desktop" mean to you?

Voters
4604. You may not vote on this poll
  • Any person can install it on any computer without any problems

    1,609 34.95%
  • Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured

    2,414 52.43%
  • Every commercial application works on it

    453 9.84%
  • Nothing--it's a nonsensical term

    704 15.29%
  • It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers

    2,236 48.57%
  • It comes preinstalled on computers so novice users don't have to install it

    889 19.31%
  • It's suitable to the needs of most beginner users but not necessarily to most intermediate ones

    568 12.34%
  • Windows and nothing else... not even Mac OS X

    46 1.00%
  • Works on my desktop

    1,199 26.04%
  • Other (please explain)

    166 3.61%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 786 of 952 FirstFirst ... 286686736776784785786787788796836886 ... LastLast
Results 7,851 to 7,860 of 9520

Thread: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

  1. #7851
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Beans
    258
    Distro
    Gutsy Gibbon Testing

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    What's easier than just clicking the file? We're talking about WMV files. Given the choice between installing a plugin and just clicking the file, I'll settle for the latter.
    Not a very good argument. You are talking about an MS format in an MS OS, by the same token .ogg will play out of the box in Ubuntu and .mov in Apple. The latter is actually alot more popular than .wmv. If you wanna talk about codec support then Ubuntu is just as easy as Windows in that sense as they both will download and install any necessary codecs as needed.
    Since I get asked alot, I am originally from Ukraine but am Russian by nationality. My nick means specter in Russian.

  2. #7852
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by m.musashi View Post
    This is a faulty argument. Computers don't ship with windows because windows just works. They ship with windows because windows is all most people know and in order to stay in business manufacturers go to great lengths to make sure windows works so people will buy their computers. And I suppose all the 24/7 toll free tech support from Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM and on and on are not there to support the fixing of windows problems because windows just works.

    Oh, and quoting the number of support threads in a support forum is meaningless. Actually, a million posts only proves that a heck of a lot of people are using Ubuntu. If half the people that use Ubuntu have problems then half don't and you won't see them for that precise reason. Most people have problems because they are not very tech savvy and are trying to install an operating system on a computer that was not manufactured to run that OS. The fact that most of them eventually succeed is a testament to Ubuntu and the people here who help them and the desire of those wanting to use it to work hard at fixing their problems.

    If manufacturers would spend as much effort to ensure K/Ubuntu worked like they do with windows then it would. Don't go throwing out a bunch of baseless suppositions and ignore the reality of the issue. Hardware makers can make Linux work just as well as windows. In fact, given the amount of money microsoft has spent on windows, it should work a whole lot better than it does. If you like windows then use it. You are free to do so (within the boundaries of the EULA of course). If you like Linux you are even more free to use it. But coming to a Linux forum and telling everyone that Linux has problems and windows is better accomplishes nothing. If you want to see Linux/Ubuntu get better then do something useful. If you could care less what happens then live and let live. Your comments here will achieve nothing except to incite people. And if you think you are helping by posting here you are not. No one here is going to say "oh, he makes a good point. Let's go fix that." If you want to discuss the pros/cons of using Ubuntu then by all means do so. But stick to facts and avoid hyperbole.

    Finally, do not ignore that fact that for many people using Linux/Ubuntu is also a philosophy. Many of us are sick and tired of all the MS bull and saturation of the market with secret formats. In a free society information must remain free. Microsoft's ubiquitousness undermines freedom of access and freedom of information. What if the bible, koran, declaration of independence or any other important document had been written in ms word and only those who could afford to buy the software could read them? Is that freedom? You may not accept the underlying philosophy and you do not have to accept it to use free (as in freedom) software. But you do have to acknowledge that for many of us the philosophy is important and respect that.

    Peace.
    You made my point for me. 99.9% of SHIPPED SYSTEMS with Windows installed WILL just work (at least at first), because the hardware was chosen for the OS, the drivers selected and added to the installation CDs, and the OS configured for the hardware.

    Then you said "If I installed kubuntu on all of those machines, simply everything would not work.", but Kubuntu wasn't configured for the hardware. YOU installed Kubuntu on those machines, but you expect that it will work as flawlessly out of the box as the pre-installed Windows on the same machine?

    It might be just me, but I could never get Windows rollback to work properly. Then again I wouldn't have a clue how to use Linux recovery mode either.

    Then, as I said, Windows will work, pre-installed, out of the box...but give it six months and installing and uninstalling software, changing/adding hardware etc, and see if it works as well as Linux does after six months. I've had Ubuntu on my notebook for going on 2 years, and it works as well now as it did then, upgraded from Hoary to Breezy to Dapper. This after 6 months of XP on a brand new HP laptop almost ground to a halt.

    And the wireless and video worked "out of the box", as soon as I'd installed Ubuntu, as did the touchpad, sound, etc.

    Comparing Windows, pre-installed on hardware configured for Windows, with Kubuntu installed by you on hardware configured for Windows, is like comparing apples with oranges and unfair. Buy hardware that supports/is supported by Ubuntu/Linux, or have Linux pre-installed on hardware configured for Linux, then do the comparison.
    This is exactly my point. I did not say windows is better. I said ubuntu is simply not ready like windows is. Yes it is not the fault of the developers and yes it will get to the point where the generic ubuntu installation works way more smoothly then the generic windows installation. I CAN compare pre-installed windows to installing kubuntu on that same computer because my computer and probably yours too came preinstalled with windows and you chose to install ubuntu.

    Yes the big computer corporations try very hard to make all their products work for windows. So far, ubuntu has been so great that alot of this hardware works flawlessly for ubuntu. But as I said before, take a biofuel car for example, it's probably a great car, i would love to have one myself, but I would be unable to goto any random gas station and fuel it up because the majority of gas stations simply dont have the ability to fuel it up. You cannot say that this car is "ready"


    Then, as I said, Windows will work, pre-installed, out of the box...but give it six months and installing and uninstalling software, changing/adding hardware etc, and see if it works as well as Linux does after six months. I've had Ubuntu on my notebook for going on 2 years, and it works as well now as it did then, upgraded from Hoary to Breezy to Dapper. This after 6 months of XP on a brand new HP laptop almost ground to a halt.
    I completely agree with this. No matter what you do windows will slow down after time, linux will not.

    Most people have problems because they are not very tech savvy and are trying to install an operating system on a computer that was not manufactured to run that OS. The fact that most of them eventually succeed is a testament to Ubuntu and the people here who help them and the desire of those wanting to use it to work hard at fixing their problems.
    This is also what is great about ubuntu. When you need support about anything you can find it. However as stated before, alot of users would rather use the preinstalled windows because the computer was made to function perfectly then spend time on forums looking for solutions


    If manufacturers would spend as much effort to ensure K/Ubuntu worked like they do with windows then it would. Don't go throwing out a bunch of baseless suppositions and ignore the reality of the issue. Hardware makers can make Linux work just as well as windows. In fact, given the amount of money microsoft has spent on windows, it should work a whole lot better than it does. If you like windows then use it. You are free to do so (within the boundaries of the EULA of course). If you like Linux you are even more free to use it. But coming to a Linux forum and telling everyone that Linux has problems and windows is better accomplishes nothing
    I am not ignoring the reality of the issue, you are the one doing so. If you had read my posts then you would have seen that I did say it was the fault of the manufacturers. Being 100% realistic the amount of products not working has greatly diminished over the year and is rapidly becoming close to 100% out of the box compatibility.

    The reality of the issue is that 99.9% of computers preinstalled with windows work when turned on. The reality of kubuntu is that, if large portion may work perfectly and better on linux, there would still be a large portion that has a number of issues. Yes those computers were made to work with windows, but ubuntu was also made to work, was it not?

    This is not a thread about which is better. If i believed windows was better i would not spend my time here or running linux. This is a thread about ubuntu being "ready". All of my arguments were directed towards this topic. In my opinion (as you see in my posts) it is not. You could argue that windows is not ready. It is obvious that it has problems as well.

  3. #7853
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Beans
    371
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by prizrak View Post
    Not a very good argument. You are talking about an MS format in an MS OS, by the same token .ogg will play out of the box in Ubuntu and .mov in Apple. The latter is actually alot more popular than .wmv. If you wanna talk about codec support then Ubuntu is just as easy as Windows in that sense as they both will download and install any necessary codecs as needed.

    .ogg is more popular in the open source community, but doesn't hold a candle to .wmv in total number of users.

  4. #7854
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Beans
    316
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    The latter in that statement would be .mov, which IS far more popular than .wmv.

    Reading is fun.

  5. #7855
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    I don't see how Linux should be given extra points here just because WMV is a Microsoft codec. The fact is that it's a Windows world, and as such, one can reasonably expect to find a lot of WMV-encoded videos out there.

    And I'll remind some of you that, as bionerual said, this isn't a Windows versus Linux debate, so I don't know where you guys are taking this.

  6. #7856
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Edge of Time
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bionerual View Post
    The reality of the issue is that 99.9% of computers preinstalled with windows work when turned on. The reality of kubuntu is that, if large portion may work perfectly and better on linux, there would still be a large portion that has a number of issues. Yes those computers were made to work with windows, but ubuntu was also made to work, was it not?
    You know, 99.9% of the computers preinstalled with K/Ubuntu also work perfectly (System 76 for example). Your point is meaningless. You simply cannot compare the readiness of an OS that is not preinstalled and was not set up by the manufacturer to work with the readiness of an OS that is preinstalled and was configured by those in control of the hardware. Try to install OSX on a Dell. Does that mean OSX isn't ready because it won't work? Yes, it's true that the devs are working hard to make Ubuntu work on as many boxes as possible, but until the people making the boxes also make an effort to be compatible with Ubuntu and Linux in general you just can't expect perfect compatibility. There are too many variables that the Ubuntu devs have no control over. That is not a reflection of the readiness of the OS. It's a reflection of the readiness of manufacturers to design for Ubuntu.

    This is not a thread about which is better. If i believed windows was better i would not spend my time here or running linux. This is a thread about ubuntu being "ready". All of my arguments were directed towards this topic. In my opinion (as you see in my posts) it is not. You could argue that windows is not ready. It is obvious that it has problems as well.
    Actually, if you have read the majority of the posts here (as I have) you would know that this thread is not about Ubuntu being ready at all. It is the dumping ground for all the people who come to the forums and want to complain that Ubuntu isn't ready because they can't get it to work. Your arguments are no more original than anyone else's. Furthermore, you would also have noticed that the term "ready" is highly subjective and therefore meaningless. My entire family from 7 year old to my parents are using Ubuntu. Using your brand of logic I should be able to conclude that Ubuntu is ready for everyone because it's ready for me.

    Peace.

  7. #7857
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by m.musashi View Post
    You know, 99.9% of the computers preinstalled with K/Ubuntu also work perfectly (System 76 for example). Your point is meaningless. You simply cannot compare the readiness of an OS that is not preinstalled and was not set up by the manufacturer to work with the readiness of an OS that is preinstalled and was configured by those in control of the hardware. Try to install OSX on a Dell. Does that mean OSX isn't ready because it won't work? Yes, it's true that the devs are working hard to make Ubuntu work on as many boxes as possible, but until the people making the boxes also make an effort to be compatible with Ubuntu and Linux in general you just can't expect perfect compatibility. There are too many variables that the Ubuntu devs have no control over. That is not a reflection of the readiness of the OS. It's a reflection of the readiness of manufacturers to design for Ubuntu..

    Actually, if you have read the majority of the posts here (as I have) you would know that this thread is not about Ubuntu being ready at all. It is the dumping ground for all the people who come to the forums and want to complain that Ubuntu isn't ready because they can't get it to work. Your arguments are no more original than anyone else's. Furthermore, you would also have noticed that the term "ready" is highly subjective and therefore meaningless. My entire family from 7 year old to my parents are using Ubuntu. Using your brand of logic I should be able to conclude that Ubuntu is ready for everyone because it's ready for me.

    Peace
    I just don't think you get it at all or are not reading my posts fully. Stop pulling the argument off in your own direction simply for the sake of arguement.
    Yes of course 99.9% of preinstalled ubuntu works. But that is NOT all the computers in the world. The computers shipped with windows are MOST of the computers in the world.

    OSX actually can be installed on a dell with some tweaking but that is not what it is meant for. Ubuntu is meant for those computers. As i stated multiple times I KNOW that manufacturers aren't developing for linux and this the world we live in. It IS a windows world. Of course ubuntu is ready for the linux world, but unfortunately that is a very small world. Ubuntu is simply not ready for the world in which we live in today.

    If you wish to argue that ubuntu is ready for computers made for it then please, skip my posts because that is not what I am talking about and I am not interested.

  8. #7858
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Edge of Time
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bionerual View Post
    I just don't think you get it at all or are not reading my posts fully. Stop pulling the argument off in your own direction simply for the sake of arguement.
    Yes of course 99.9% of preinstalled ubuntu works. But that is NOT all the computers in the world. The computers shipped with windows are MOST of the computers in the world.
    So, what is your point? Your argument seems to be that Ubuntu doesn't work as well as windows but you don't compare it on equal grounds. What I'm hearing you say is that the majority of computers run windows so therefore Ubuntu isn't ready for the world. That makes absolutely no sense. Following this logic, Ubuntu will only be "ready" when everyone starts to buy computers running it, but no one can start to buy it because it isn't ready. See where this is going? By this logic, you are also saying that OSX isn't ready because most people buy windows. Most people also bought VHS instead of Beta despite the fact that Beta was a better product at that time. Consumers don't always buy what's best. They buy what's cheap and convenient. It's convenient to buy windows so they do. Most don't even know there is a choice. If you walk into a store all you see are different versions of windows.

    In reality, what you are saying is that world isn't ready for Ubuntu. And I totally agree with that. Most people are windows puppets. They can do things with windows so they are happy. So happy, in fact that they are willing to buy it over and over and deal with the hassle of running anti-malware. It's actually more convenient to do this than learning something new. Nearly everyone I know uses windows and they are all totally computer illiterate. They know that by clicking a series of icons or buttons they can do certain things. If you set them in front of a mac or linux box they take one look and leave. They are unwilling to change because they are unwilling to learn. To attribute this to some fault, defect or lack of "readiness" on the part of Ubuntu is meaningless.

    OSX actually can be installed on a dell with some tweaking but that is not what it is meant for. Ubuntu is meant for those computers. As i stated multiple times I KNOW that manufacturers aren't developing for linux and this the world we live in. It IS a windows world. Of course ubuntu is ready for the linux world, but unfortunately that is a very small world. Ubuntu is simply not ready for the world in which we live in today.
    Again, you are simply saying that the world isn't ready to change. You admit that Ubuntu is ready for the Linux world. Isn't that enough? Why does it have to be ready for the windows world? And what would that even look like? There are only two options here: Ubuntu emulates windows so the world can accept and use it, or the world changes and decides to learn how to use Ubuntu. The first option is out because no one working on Ubuntu wants to emulate windows. So the only option is that people have to change.

    If you wish to argue that ubuntu is ready for computers made for it then please, skip my posts because that is not what I am talking about and I am not interested.
    So, what are you talking about? That Ubuntu is not ready for computers NOT made for it? Because, in truth 99.9% of computers made are NOT made for Ubuntu. What's the point of discussing that? That is obvious and not in dispute. So are you suggesting that Ubuntu can only be ready when they figure out how to make it run on all the computers in the world that are not designed for it? Chances are your computer came with a sticker saying "designed for windows". Not "designed for Linux". If this is your argument then perhaps you should just not post. If you are trying to say something else, then please be more clear. I actually have read your posts (and most of the other 7000+) and I do understand your point. It's only that you aren't saying anything new. Read the rest of this thread and you'll see that. If you think you are saying something new and you have read a good percentage of this thread so you can offer some evidence of your originality, then please share that.

    If you think I am not understanding your point then please clarify what it is you want to say, because what I hear is that Ubuntu isn't ready because everyone uses windows. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.
    Last edited by m.musashi; July 5th, 2007 at 12:43 AM.

  9. #7859
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Beans
    996
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Windows is certainly not ready for the desktop.

    After installing windows XP SP2 on my computer:
    - intel pentium 4 2.4 Ghz.
    - Integrated soundcard "SoundMax"
    - 768 MB RAM
    - 128 MB nvidia graphics card (geforce *something* "something")
    - HP deskjet 3420 printer
    - HP scanjet 2400 scanner
    - LG CD and DVD burners

    I made a review:

    Installation:
    - The CD initially boots into some text mode installation, very hard to deal with, then in the middle of the process it is required to format partitions from text mode and then it copies itself to continue the process. This install process is average in regards of simplicity.

    Dual Boot:
    - The installer totally ignored my other partitions, I had to implement Grub manually in order to recover my other operating systems.

    Hardware compatibility:
    - Windows said that it was installed, so I booted into it, the first thing you notice is some kind of welcome to windows animation, it was silent, I could eventually figure out that sound wasn't working.
    - When the animation ended and I got outside the tutorial, I could notice that the resolution was very small! this monitor+graphic card combo allows a max of 1280x1024, but windows wouldn't allow me to choose more than 400x300!

    - tried checking if it detected my printer, I went to control panel, etc. But it simply couldn't detect my printer.
    - The same happen happened to my scanner.

    I don't know what should I do, is MS requesting me to get an OEM system instead of the computer I built? I don't really have that money, I am not sure why windows XP has failed to detect most of my hardware, when people advertise that it has great hardware support. I guess they lied to me! Sorry but I don't think windows XP is usable for me in this stage.

    Software:
    This is one of the points in which windows is terribly lacking, let's see:
    - Notepad: VERY limited, you can't even enable auto indentation, and it only supports MSDOS text file format...
    - WordPad: Not too much options, I couldn't find basic things like spell check, openoffice writer or even abiword are like 45 times more complete than this.
    - MSPaint : Has anyone tried doing serious art work on this? No point of comparisson to the Gimp.
    - Calc : It is kind of good although I miss expression evaluation, it is a little faster than an actual simulation of a real calculator.
    - Games : VERY few games, although minesweeper is good.
    - Internet explorer 6: I don't think it actually had theme support? And no tabs? wtf?

    I couldn't find any spreadsheet software or presentation software.

    Multimedia:
    - I tried windows media player but it can't play my DVDs, it keeps poping out something like "incompatible format" I decided to give up. When it plays it is kind of good, although it takes almost all of my screen and is slow.
    - Burning CDs/DVDs is either very unfriendly or missing, I couldn't find any way to burn stuff...

    Customizability:
    - Windows XP hardly comes with 3 themes, blue, silver and green, I think I was able to change the font size. I can also change up to 4 icons: My Computer, My documents , Recycle bin and Recycle bin (full). I am not sure if there is more customization options, I certainly couldn't find much from the menu maze, ooh I think I can also change the wallpaper..

    Conclusion
    Windows is probably ready for people willing to pay a lot of software licenses or to commit the crime of piracy. As for the rest, it is 'ready' in the sense that it would probably allow you to "sorta" browse the web, and do a couple of text documents but nothing advanced. For more thing, you will need a lot of tweaking and help from other people to learn its wereabouts like the gate to 'secret' software which is not accessible through the panel control. People wanting customization would either have to break the EULA or refer to a different OS. Games are out of the question without good hardware support. Windows is not ready for the desktop, sorry guys...
    Last edited by vexorian; November 8th, 2009 at 01:26 AM.
    Xye incredibly difficult puzzle game with minimal graphics. Also at playdeb
    Got a blog: Will Stay Free

  10. #7860
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Edge of Time
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by vexorian View Post
    windows is certainly not ready for the desktop
    /snip/
    Lol. Now that's a fair comparison - clean self-install of windows on a computer not "designed for windows" (vs the implied clean self install of Ubuntu with which we are all familiar). Nice job.

Page 786 of 952 FirstFirst ... 286686736776784785786787788796836886 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •