XP is better than any Linux distro (IMO)

XP is better than any Linux distro (IMO) I'm sure some may take this as a flame, while others will take it as an insult, but I wish to explain why I think this.

Ubuntu has been my first Linux expereince. Ubuntu has made Linux very usable for new users, and has led the way for many to easily cross over. I love the way it installs,either as live or through a GUI interface, similar to Windows. This in itself gets 10 out of 10. Since using Ubuntu, it has awakened me to Linux. I have installed heaps of other distributions to see what they were like as well. Some installed easily while others lost me with choices I knew nothing about. Ubuntu made the choices minimal and easy to understand. I used Ubuntu for 2 months to see if I could break my Windows addiction. There wasnt much I couldnt do, but in the end I find myself typing to you from a XP environment.

WHY?

Drivers are my main concern. The idea that one size fits all for drivers does not work for me. I get far better graphics performance on the same computer running windows. While it may be hailed as good that Lunux does not require drivers, I would much prefere to install drivers that are written specifically for my hardware than one size fits all, drivers as with Linux.

I have also found that there is loads of free software that works just as well in XP as in Linux. Open office works in XP, Paint.net is free and even is better than GIMP in terms of all the plugns you can get for it. Firefox works as well in XP as with Linux, and you can use your scroll mouse in it with XP, plus it has some small but annoying bugs in Linux.

Yes Linux is free,but I dont mind paying for something that you know has most of the issues worked out. And you can get the same free software to run in it.

The navigation and files structures are different enough to be a pain to learn for a new user.

I have some software that Linux just doesnt have an equivelent to. I cant run My tv capture card in Linux.

Etc Etc.

I truelly appreciate EVERY thing that the Linux team have contributed, but there are still too many missing links for me to stay in the Linux domain.

Great effort guys for an unpaid team of volunteers. I will check Back in a years time to see you the cross over has advanced any further.

Regards Benny

Some people are just more comfortable with older things, I guess you're one of them.

JIm

Use what works best for you.

cardinals_fan said: Use what works best for you.

+1 on this. I don't think anyone here (sensible people, at least) will flame you for having an opinion.

As for the file structures being different, I find that Linux has a easier-to-understand file structure than Windows. :/

cariboo907 said: Some people are just more comfortable with older things, I guess you're one of them.

JIm

Thats the other thing, a person expresses an opinion without been personal, and a proportion of Linuxites, then think its thier right to make it a personal attack.

If you read back you will notice I priased all the efforts of the contributors, but merely stated my reasons why I found myself using XP again.

You dont add to the perception people have towards Linuxites.

A critisizm doesnt have to be taken as a personal attack. It can be learned from and built upon.

I expcet you are not one of the Ubuntu contributors ?

Use What Works For You. If XP meets all your expectations and as you implied, you don't mind paying for an OS - then simply use XP. I learned a long time ago to use whatever tool works best for the application and reduces my frustration.

As for drivers, that won't change until hardware mfgs. see a financial benefit in writing drivers for Linux (Ubuntu). Linux users must purchase hardware only from vendors that support Linux, just like Windows.

One of the true benefits of Ubuntu - if it doesn't work for you, simply uninstall it, The only investment is time and a learning curve. No charge to download, install or use. Explaining your motives for installing or uninstalling is unnecessary. It's freedom of choice.

Hopefully, your return and try again at a later date. Good Luck and enjoy.

ynneb said:

Drivers are my main concern. The idea that one size fits all for drivers does not work for me. I get far better graphics performance on the same computer running windows. While it may be hailed as good that Lunux does not require drivers, I would much prefere to install drivers that are written specifically for my hardware than one size fits all, drivers as with Linux.

The above statements of yours are common misconceptions about Linux.

Drivers in Linux are not "one size fits all", and nor are they intended to. There are thousands of drivers that Linux carries, each one for particular devices. It may occur that different brands of devices from different manufacturers do have the same chip inside, so all of them work with the same driver, which has support for them. This is no different than in the Windows world, and just to put an example, look at graphic card drivers. The NVIDIA driver will be the same across all manufacturers. Same with ATI. Same with many other devices based on the same chip.

So, as you can see, Linux does need drivers, and many of them. The difference between Windows and Linux only is that Linux has them shipped by default, Windows not.

The reason for your poor graphic card performance is most likely because you own a ATI or NVIDIA card, but you haven't installed the latest (proprietary, though) 3D drivers. So, Ubuntu is using a generic driver for it, just as Windows does if you haven't yet installed the drivers after a fresh install.

Note: This post of mine is not intended to keep you using Linux, but I just felt I needed to say this :lolflag:

cariboo907 said: Some people are just more comfortable with older things, I guess you're one of them.

JIm

ynneb said: Thats the other thing, a person expresses an opinion without been personal, and a proportion of Linuxites, then think its thier right to make it a personal attack.

If you read back you will notice I priased all the efforts of the contributors, but merely stated my reasons why I found myself using XP again.

You dont add to the perception people have towards Linuxites.

A critisizm doesnt have to be taken as a personal attack. It can be learned from and built upon.

I expcet you are not one of the Ubuntu contributors ?

You did not deserve that reply.

Darrell

i have the opposite view. there are too many things missing in windows for me to use it. good luck to you and godspeed.

XP is better than any Linux distro (IMO)

i'm glad you put- (IMO) in the title. there are millions of people that will disagree with you. also consider buying a computer with linux preinstalled. your experience will be much different. you bought one with windows preinstalled didn't you?

Exactly, the best OS is the one that works best for you; what everybody else says is irrelevant.

For me, I grew up with Microsoft since way back in the early DOS 2.10 days. It was a pretty rough switch to Linux. Not better or worse, just different ways of doing things.

I do miss some of XP's simplicities. Fire and forget it installs, a more consistent GUI, I actually miss XP's start menu; tried a few different menu apps in both Gnome and KDE, and nothing is really close. And I have to agree with the OP; Paint.NET is absolutely fantastic, minus the whole .NET dependency.

On the other hand, I definitely don't miss the whole "security" thing with XP; spyware, terrible permission system, having to load up a bunch of security apps just to cover a poorly designed OS, etc etc. I don't miss the monolithic design, and having to reboot on the slightest upgrade of a system level program. I don't miss having to crack the bloody operating system just to change how it looks; that's just inane. Slower performance across the board.

The kicker for me though is that XP is on it's way into retirement quickly as far as MS is concerned. I absolutely *hate* Vista. It's not so much the performance, as that has improved somewhat, even though its still a majorly bloated pig of an OS. It's just some really stupid design choices. Not going to list them; Googling "Vista sucks" will say everything. And Windows 7, granted still in early alpha/beta, is looking to be more of the same with a few more addons, and I would bet real money it'll be loaded up with even more anti-piracy measures, DRM, "may I please use my system?" checks, and other things that'll make you scream. Pass.

But that's just me. I'm no fanatical Linux zealot. I still have XP installed on a smaller partition for the odd game once in a while; I'm not embarrassed to say it. Rarely boot into it but meh it's there if I need it. I do work in a virtual machine from time to time for some Winders development environments; just cant kick the Delphi 2009 habit. I do have Lazarus/FPC but it just can't touch 2009's IDE, not even close.

But 99% of the time I'm in a Linux environment of some sort now, I just can't do without it anymore. Absolutely love it, even with its little quirks here and there. Usually in Ubuntu, but flirting with the latest KDE4.2 beta.. still a lot of rough edges but shaping up to be amazing.

And I hear you about the directory structure heh.. intimidating at first, but once you see how it works it makes a *lot* of sense. A lot more organized than just dropping every file under the sun in a "System32" folder. That's something Microsoft could get a clue with; that and lose the damn registry; if you think that editing a configuration file is complicated you have no business messing around in that insane mess either.

I had a lot of problems with my nVidia card at first, but nabbing the 180.11 beta's cured what ailed me; working smashingly well now. Can't blame the Ubuntu or Gnome devs for nVidia's mistakes. Winders had a few turkey drivers too in recent history.

Short version, kudos for at least trying it and seeing its strengths. Maybe a bit down the road it might be more your speed.

dannytatom said: +1 on this. I don't think anyone here (sensible people, at least) will flame you for having an opinion.

As for the file structures being different, I find that Linux has a easier-to-understand file structure than Windows. :/

+1 as well. The over-arching point here, I think, is that Linux offers choices; even the choice to go back to Windows. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a wonderful thing!

As for file structure...I must agree with you. I like the tree structure very much, and the fact that backup is as easy as copying my /home folder to my external hard drive. And you've got to admit...the no defrag thing is pretty cool. Go ext3! Woo! :)

XP is better than any Linux distro at what basic home user processes? yes maybe Windows does have the advantage for ease of use but if you want to do anything serious with your machine eg server activities then Linux would be much better than your XP.

Yes Linux is free,but I dont mind paying for something that you know has most of the issues worked out. And you can get the same free software to run in it.

You cant get all the same software

The navigation and files structures are different enough to be a pain to learn for a new user.

Didnt you have to learn the XP file structure at some point?

jbysmith said:

But that's just me. I'm no fanatical Linux zealot. I still have XP installed on a smaller partition for the odd game once in a while; I'm not embarrassed to say it. Rarely boot into it but meh it's there if I need it.

Same here. I love Linux, but I'm no zealot. I don't have XP (except for a spoofed copy in VB every now and then) any longer, but nothing wrong with keeping both. The bald truth is that, for whatever reason, there *are* things that Windows can do that Linux cannot (like certain video games, for instance). Fortunately for me I don't play video games (unless you count my addiction to Pogo.com), so no loss. :)

jbysmith said:

But 99% of the time I'm in a Linux environment of some sort now, I just can't do without it anymore. Absolutely love it, even with its little quirks here and there. Usually in Ubuntu, but flirting with the latest KDE4.2 beta.. still a lot of rough edges but shaping up to be amazing.

I spend 100% of my time in a Linux environment, and I have to agree with you that I can't do without it anymore. I love KDE (4.1 here, but thinking of testing the beta), and I love being able to customize my computing environment without bloated programs or system hacks. It's great. :)

jbysmith said:

And I hear you about the directory structure heh.. intimidating at first, but once you see how it works it makes a *lot* of sense. A lot more organized than just dropping every file under the sun in a "System32" folder. That's something Microsoft could get a clue with; that and lose the damn registry; if you think that editing a configuration file is complicated you have no business messing around in that insane mess either.

It is a little intimidating at first, true, but as you said; once you get the hang of it, you're smacking your forehead and going, "Duh!" for about five minutes. What makes it intimidating, I think, is its simplicity. We subconsciously get used to the complicated mess that Microsoft uses, and our brains just don't immediately accept the simplicity of this better system. IMO, anyway. :)

jbysmith said:

Short version, kudos for at least trying it and seeing its strengths. Maybe a bit down the road it might be more your speed.

+1 to that. @OP: You've done more than a lot of people who dislike Linux do: you tried it. You gave it a chance, and that's all anybody could possibly ask.

Best of luck, whatever you decide in the future. :)

ynneb said: Thats the other thing, a person expresses an opinion without been personal, and a proportion of Linuxites, then think its thier right to make it a personal attack.

If you read back you will notice I priased all the efforts of the contributors, but merely stated my reasons why I found myself using XP again.

You dont add to the perception people have towards Linuxites.

A critisizm doesnt have to be taken as a personal attack. It can be learned from and built upon.

I expcet you are not one of the Ubuntu contributors ? It will always amaze me. Why do people get surprised to have such answers? After all, this is a Linux forum, ubuntuforums. Stating that Linux is not good or not suited to their needs is a little provocative, is it not? Will it change anything? Will Linux benefit from the contribution to get better? I'm not going to any Microsoft forum to claim that it does not meet my own requirements.. Criticism is always welcome when it is beneficial to the community, to the distribution etc. The whole point is : Linux is a project, something you can contribute to develop, change, adjust, tweak, it requires some involvement. You're not just at the end of the line, it is a collaborative effort. This is what *I* like, and it fits me well :)

All in all: use what you like.

bapoumba said: It will always amaze me. Why do people get surprised to have such answers? After all, this is a Linux forum, ubuntuforums. Stating that Linux is not good or not suited to their needs is a little provocative, is it not? Will it change anything? Will Linux benefit from the contribution to get better? I'm not going to any Microsoft forum to claim that it does not meet my own requirements..

Criticism is always welcome when it is beneficial to the community, to the distribution etc. The whole point is : Linux is a project, something you can contribute to develop, change, adjust, tweak, it requires some involvement. You're not just at the end of the line, it is a collaborative effort. This is what *I* like, and it fits me well :)

All in all: use what you like.

Well said!=D> *clap *clap

bapoumba said: It will always amaze me. Why do people get surprised to have such answers? After all, this is a Linux forum, ubuntuforums. Stating that Linux is not good or not suited to their needs is a little provocative, is it not? Will it change anything? Will Linux benefit from the contribution to get better?

I think his idea was that if he pointed out why he is going back to Windows, it will give the developers (and Ubuntu community as a whole) insight as to what needs to change to reach a wider variety of people.

He could have gone into more details, or it might not matter at all. But, I think his intentions were good. So no, I don't think it was right for someone to reply in the way some did.

dannytatom said: I think his idea was that if he pointed out why he is going back to Windows, it will give the developers (and Ubuntu community as a whole) insight as to what needs to change to reach a wider variety of people.

He could have gone into more details, or it might not matter at all. But, I think his intentions were good. So no, I don't think it was right for someone to reply in the way some did. The proper way to give insights is filing bug reports or write patches and submit them. For now, the contribution towards improving the difficulties the OP encountered are gone to /dev/null. And we all know what the issues are with drivers. My first computer did not run that great with Linux, and I had much hardware trouble. Then I bought hardware that was supported when the machine was dead and needed a replacement.

This is posted in the Sticky thread at the top of this forum:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

As you'll see, driver issues are well known and actively being worked on.

lykwydchykyn said: This is posted in the Sticky thread at the top of this forum:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

As you'll see, driver issues are well known and actively being worked on.

And actually the only reason why I couldnt get my friends to use it. Their wifi cards were a pain to get working.

dannytatom said: I think his idea was that if he pointed out why he is going back to Windows, it will give the developers (and Ubuntu community as a whole) insight as to what needs to change to reach a wider variety of people.

He could have gone into more details, or it might not matter at all. But, I think his intentions were good. So no, I don't think it was right for someone to reply in the way some did. I agree. The intentions were good, and the original post was presented in a rather civil manner.

Nevertheless, none of the "suggestions" are really practical improvements to be made. It's not as if Linux developers sit around saying "We have no more work to do. I guess we have the ability to make better drivers, but people don't seem to think that's important" and then read a thread like this and say "Wait! What are we doing sitting around? We should be writing those drivers. Good thing that person told us about the driver problem."

aysiu said: I agree. The intentions were good, and the original post was presented in a rather civil manner.

Nevertheless, none of the "suggestions" are really practical improvements to be made. It's not as if Linux developers sit around saying "We have no more work to do. I guess we have the ability to make better drivers, but people don't seem to think that's important" and then read a thread like this and say "Wait! What are we doing sitting around? We should be writing those drivers. Good thing that person told us about the driver problem."

True, but the problem the OP stated about drivers is really the ONLY reason why I cant get people to use it.

ynneb said: XP is better than any Linux distro (IMO)

I'm sure some may take this as a flame, while others will take it as an insult, but I wish to explain why I think this. Well this will be fun. You claim not to flame, but... Anyways lets take a look at your post.

Ubuntu has been my first Linux experience. Ubuntu has made Linux very usable for new users, and has led the way for many to easily cross over. I love the way it installs,either as live or through a GUI interface,

Well that is great.

similar to Windows.

No, you don't mean that, do you? There is nothing but grief from installing windows.

1. sata drive. You have one and install windows, after you are finish you remember that you had forgotten to enable AHCI in the bios (much faster then ide emu and more stable). Oh no. Windows only give you the blue screen of death. You have to install windows again!
2. Install takes 1-2 hours and you have to be there all the time, or else it will stop just to ask you some questions. Why don't they ask every questions at the start? Can I do something useful while I wait? No just watch microsoft commercial. In linux? yes because its a live cd.
3. When I'm finish installing does anything work? No then I must find my driver discs. Oh wait I have lost them. No problem just download them? Nope because the network card is not supported, and needs new drivers.
4. Now what hm oh updates. How many reboots do I need do before I'm done. 6, 7 maybe 10? Oh yes. from XP vanilla to sp3 there is this long. And you need to be on the net then, and risk being infected. (I have seen windows 2003 get infected in _20_ minutes while being patched up). Its true. Linux is finished patched when the disk comes popping out of your tray, almost.
5. How do you update software on windows? MS has one way the windows update, firefox controls itself, but most you need to check each website yourself yo check to see if something is wrong. How do I do it in linux? aptitude update && aptitude safe-upgrade
6. uninstalling software: Windows nightmare windows don't have any control. + whe whole register stuff, don't get me started. One of the top kernel developers at microsoft said these two issues was their biggest embarestment, and the registers just wouldn't go away because of 3d party software.
7. I'm getting a bit bored but just one more I just remembered. The it-department at my university used 6 month to fix and repackage Adobe CS3 to be able to install and run properly on the campus machines. Why because they don't to it the right way (in this case the microsoft way). Making files everywhere when the program is used, the user needs to be an administrator do do this. This don't work very well in a enterprise environment.

Drivers are my main concern. The idea that one size fits all for drivers does not work for me. I get far better graphics performance on the same computer running windows. While it may be hailed as good that Lunux does not require drivers, I would much prefere to install drivers that are written specifically for my hardware than one size fits all, drivers as with Linux.

Drivers ok. Why do you think the drivers may be bad? Possibly because the hardware makers isn't interested in writing them, and are refusing to share anything useful to linux driver developers. Yes its a shame.

I have also found that there is loads of free software that works just as well in XP as in Linux. Open office works in XP, Paint.net is free and even is better than GIMP in terms of all the plugns you can get for it. Firefox works as well in XP as with Linux, and you can use your scroll mouse in it with XP, plus it has some small but annoying bugs in Linux.

indeed, and most of those would never exist without a community like linux is providing

Yes Linux is free,but I dont mind paying for something that you know has most of the issues worked out. And you can get the same free software to run in it.

Me nether, but I like freedom. Ok I'll give you an example. When I buy a piece of software I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. Use it on more then one pc, install it as many times as I like, maybe I want to fix it, or improve it. Just like I can do with a car. I own my car. I can use any tires I want, I can change the engine etc. Can I do this with windows? Or Spore? Ha!

The navigation and files structures are different enough to be a pain to learn for a new user.

You are wrong! A new user is not some windows user. A new user is some which have never used a computer before. And I have met them. I work at a university section for computer-science and I have been asked to install ubuntu or fedora because that was what they where familiar with. They hadn't used a computer before they started at the university. Believe it. And strange? This is how the original unix structure was, or close enough. From the 70s. Before anyone thought up any windows at all. So if its different from microsoft then its bad? then XP must be evil and scary, cause its a lot different from win 95, or 3.11 or god forbid MS dos?

I have some software that Linux just doesnt have an equivelent to. I cant run My tv capture card in Linux.

Etc Etc.

ok I already said something about this. Hardware manufactures..

I truelly appreciate EVERY thing that the Linux team have contributed, but there are still too many missing links for me to stay in the Linux domain.

Great effort guys for an unpaid team of volunteers. I will check Back in a years time to see you the cross over has advanced any further.

Sorry you feel that way, hope you come back some day. :)

CholericKoala said: True, but the problem the OP stated about drivers is really the ONLY reason why I cant get people to use it.

This is why I use my wallet to speak for me. If its not supported in linux, I don't buy it.

eyelessfade said: This is why I use my wallet to speak for me. If its not supported in linux, I don't buy it.

As much as I would agree, most scenarios I run into for people switching to linux are those who already have equipment that runs windows fine.

CholericKoala said: As much as I would agree, most scenarios I run into for people switching to linux are those who already have equipment that runs windows fine.

Then they should stick with Windows until they're in a position to buy new hardware. When that happens, they should buy hardware that is Linux-friendly.

Or, if they're up for it, sell their hardware on eBay and replace it with "better" hardware.

aysiu said: Then they should stick with Windows until they're in a position to buy new hardware. When that happens, they should buy hardware that is Linux-friendly.

Or, if they're up for it, sell their hardware on eBay and replace it with "better" hardware.

Sounds similar to apple, but of course with more options.

Linux is not Windows!

CholericKoala said: Sounds similar to apple, but of course with more options.

Actually, there's a huge difference.

Apple could allow people to use different hardware, but they choose to restrict you to theirs.

Linux wants you to use as much hardware as possible, but others are restricting what Linux is able to support.

aysiu said: Actually, there's a huge difference.

Apple could allow people to use different hardware, but they choose to restrict you to theirs.

Linux wants you to use as much hardware as possible, but others are restricting what Linux is able to support.

Well yes, but looking at the general point, Apple and Linux lack hardware support, no matter the excuse.

ive seen recently an increasing flood of posts like this one, being polite, intelligent, and even resourceful, all of them talking about how they've been using linux and didnt fit them, and how many shortcomings it has or how windows is better.....

what amuses me is that all posts are from users that have a really low post count. which makes things quite contradictory if you ask me.

bah, im being paranoid.... .. .. am i?

Perhaps there should be a general sticky that when a post like so comes up we can just link to and leave. It might state something like: We acknowledge that Ubuntu is not perfect, neigh any Linux distro, or even operating system, but if our strive to serve the community with a free, supported, and user friendly operating system has not satisfied you, sorry. Some of the major issues we are working on is X and X.

I mean, unless the OP comes up with something revolutionary that we haven't thought of yet, then what is the point of us trying to reason through 3 pages when it could be done with 1 post?

CholericKoala said: Perhaps there should be a general sticky that when a post like so comes up we can just link to and leave. It might state something like: We acknowledge that Ubuntu is not perfect, neigh any Linux distro, or even operating system, but if our strive to serve the community with a free, supported, and user friendly operating system has not satisfied you, sorry. Some of the major issues we are working on is X and X.

I mean, unless the OP comes up with something revolutionary that we haven't thought of yet, then what is the point of us trying to reason through 3 pages when it could be done with 1 post?

i was thinking more inthe lines of: some smart propaganda to make people have second thoughts after a simple forum search.

if you think about it, newcommers to the open source world are likely to start with ubuntu....but some discouraging posts like this one aimed to do just that: drop fear to the table, talking about how everything is so different is just what Microsoft needs when targeting this kind of public.

but again, im quite the paranoid android myself.

anyway, the low post count gives them away....

This is the "Testimonials & Experiences" section, why are many members dismissing and a few doubting of a negative experience? :confused:

As you people are claiming, use it if it suits you ... well, some people is saying that it doesn't.

Just accept it. Listen to the critic and learn from it.

Quote: Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post Some people are just more comfortable with older things, I guess you're one of them.

JIm Thats the other thing, a person expresses an opinion without been personal, and a proportion of Linuxites, then think its thier right to make it a personal attack.

If you read back you will notice I priased all the efforts of the contributors, but merely stated my reasons why I found myself using XP again.

You dont add to the perception people have towards Linuxites.

A critisizm doesnt have to be taken as a personal attack. It can be learned from and built upon.

I expcet you are not one of the Ubuntu contributors ?

I just meant that some people would rather use something they are more familiar with. It's is my opinion that XP is an old out dated operating system.

If you want to make comparisions about drivers, you would be better off comparing Vista drivers with the drivers used in Ubuntu, as both Os's are fairly recent.

I use both Vista and Ubuntu, there really is no difference in the way either OS works, They both run well on my 2 year old system. The default Vista drivers are not very good, but the manufacturer of my motherboard made 64bit drivers available within weeks of Vista being released and I really have no complaints. If I prefered Windows over Linux, I would be using Vista right now, as it does everything I need very well.

To end this if you feel more comfortable using XP go ahead and use it, it really doesn't make any difference to me.

Jim

BBspot - Gates Says Linux Best OS Ever

Thanks to those who understood my intention, in making the original post. It wasnt to hang it on Linux, but just to explain why I have found myself back using XP. If I had a product on the market, I would always be interested in why certain people didnt use it. To those that say "Linux isnt Windows" I dont know what you mean. As a computer user, I want to be able to use a GUI based operating system that opens and closes different software packages. Isn't this essentially what ALL operating systems are made to do?

To the person who wonders why I would post such a comment in a Linux forum.I am talking about Linux,and why I have found myself not using it any more. I think that is relivant, surey?

There were some good points made. Maybe I should fiddle about more with trying to get the nvidea drivers working better, and maybe a lot of it is out of Linuxes domain in terms of hardware support. One problem is, if I have hardware that I have already pruchased, and it works fine in XP, its not exactly practical to go out and buy more hardware so it can work in Linux, as has been suggested.

To those who say "use what works for you", again, I dont understand. I do use what works for me, thats why I have returned to XP, but how does that help further the Linux cause.

Again I would like to stress, I take my hat off to all those guys who has contributed 100s of hours to the Linux cause. Its amazing. I am so impressed at thier commitment.

Regards Benny

Maybe XP *is* better, but I enjoy Ubuntu more :)

As has been said before, use what's best for you. I use XP for some stuff, Vista for some stuff, and *ubuntu for some stuff. I've found that *ubuntu often boots into a usuable condition faster than XP.....

To the original poster.

I respect your honest personal opinions, and again echo what people have said in that you should use what you feel comfortable with.

I have one observation though, you dont mention Vista do you? Fact is you are favouring a platform which MS will be trying to distance itself from (IMO) in an attempt to sell Windows 7 when its released.

What will you do if Windows 7 is, as many early reviewers have claimed, simply Vista SP3?

Will you continue using XP? Will you consider Linux again? Whilst I believe that XP is a relatively stable OS, its really got no excuse not to be, after all its years old. That doesnt though distract from the malware free for all that the Windows environment allows, and I believe as users continue to run XP, and with the ever decreasing support I believe it will receive from MS, this situation will only get worse.

What XP users dont appreciate is that Microsoft will not be making any money from people who stick with XP. What incentive is there to continue support for a company that isnt making money on a product?

Just some observations, and Id be genuinely interested to hear your views.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't share it though.

Freedom is at the core of the GPL. It's not about money.

Does Microsoft have your best interest at heart?

Maybe, if you're a shareholder.

Does GNU/GPL?

yes.

Here is my 2 cents worth. The wireless issue is just flat a non starter any more. A 5 to 15 dollar investment cures the problem.

Early on I discovered that on board wireless can be a PITA. So I bought a USB adapter. At that time the one I use cost me 16.00 + sh. . Today I buy them for about 5.00 ea. . I found a WIFI card that works very well, I buy them for about 15.00 ea. I usually have a couple of the cards and 3 or 4 of the USB adapters on hand.

When I start to install on a laptop I just plug one in and "Bobs your Uncle".

Then I can futz about with the onboard later. Or not as the mood strikes me. Lately the installer or updater has been telling me that "you need XXX driver for your wireless, do you want to install it now?" Then there are my 2 HPs and my EEE that the onboard just worked.

Think about it. If you have a laptop all you need do is giveup 1 of your daily cups of starsucks coffee and buy an adapter that works OOTB. Then when you get your on board working you can lend it to your buddies to get theirs working.

:guitar:

As for XP being better, here is an experience of mine. Recently I worked on a friends Dell laptop. He wanted XP reinstalled. OK no problem, yet. I reinstalled it found the necessary drivers ( they of course had lost all the disks that came with it. It was after all several years old).

That is I found all but 1. I was never able to find the correct USB driver even on Dells site. Some times it works sometimes it doesnt. OK thinking it may be a hardware issue ( plugs loose on the board or something) I plugged in one of my Live CDs. Everything works. Including the USB ports. Oh well He wants XP.

Windows market share: 90% price: $100

Linux market share: 1% price: free

Conclusion: windows (XP/Vista/whatever) must be better than any Linux distro, since everyone would use the ONE Linux distro that would be both better and cheaper than windows.

Why I use only Linux (at home)? I must be very stubborn...

I think you'll find that people bristle a bit when you suggest that Windows is better solely (or primarily) on the basis of hardware support.

Last night, I spent a few hours trying to get my new Canon printer (it was a gift) to work on my Debian etch server. I go to Canon's website and their support FAQ has a page titled "Which operating systems support my product?"

That ticked me off. Why? Because it should read "Which operating systems *does Canon support* for this product?". Microsoft and Apple didn't do a blessed thing to get this printer working with Windows and OSX. Canon did. And Canon chose not to support Linux (at least, not in the US. Strangely, on the Europe and Asia sites there are some basic drivers).

The point is, the problem isn't "Linux". The problem is hardware vendors. I can understand someone saying "I am switching back to XP, because I can't deal with the lack of hardware support for Linux". I can't abide people saying "Linux is not as good as Windows because it doesn't support as much hardware". Do you see the difference?

Which comes down to this point: If you want to help the "linux cause", then instead of posting to a Linux forum to tell us something we already know, send an email to the folks that make your unsupported hardware and let them know that you want the freedom to use Linux with your hardware.

Not trying to sound snippy here, but lets put blame and responsibility where it belongs.

lykwydchykyn said: Which comes down to this point: If you want to help the "linux cause", then instead of posting to a Linux forum to tell us something we already know, send an email to the folks that make your unsupported hardware and let them know that you want the freedom to use Linux with your hardware.

Not trying to sound snippy here, but lets put blame and responsibility where it belongs.

+1. Personally, this will never be fixed until all the multitudes of Linux Users band together and refuse to buy non-supported hardware. Let the vendors lose a couple of million customers, and they should change their tune, especially if everybody writes to them and lets them know that they passed on their product for that very reason.

But it has to be everybody - or nearly everybody. A few hard-core supporters aren't going to make much of a difference.

As for blame...well, it doesn't serve anyone, and is probably best left alone. We don't need blame games. If someone is blaming Linux in a post that also states they're going back to Windows, then one person (or twenty) pointing out the obvious isn't going to make much difference. Their mind is made up, and it is their mind to do so to.

Let blame be. We have a great OS. We have hardware vendors that support this great OS. We have the choice to buy all pro-Linux parts and install them ourselves. All you need is a Phillips screwdriver and some thermal compound to build a computer from parts. You can even get tutorials online - for free - if you don't know how to do that.

Let people think what they will. Let people do what they will. We can try to change the situation, and write to vendors asking for Linux support, but casting blame (I think) should have no place in the equation at all.

You know what they say about he who casts the first stone....

:D

lykwydchykyn said:

Which comes down to this point: If you want to help the "linux cause", then instead of posting to a Linux forum to tell us something we already know, send an email to the folks that make your unsupported hardware and let them know that you want the freedom to use Linux with your hardware. Or, better yet, send an email to them telling them why you spent money on their competitor's product, as their competitor actually provides Linux support.

za.zen said:

As for blame...well, it doesn't serve anyone, and is probably best left alone. We don't need blame games. If someone is blaming Linux in a post that also states they're going back to Windows, then one person (or twenty) pointing out the obvious isn't going to make much difference. Their mind is made up, and it is their mind to do so to. :D

I know what you mean, but by "blame" i just mean assigning the responsibility to the party responsible. (which I guess makes my sentence redundant).

Point is, if you take the mentality "Linux doesn't support my hardware", then you think it's a problem with Linux and you start posting to the "linux community" that they need to support this or that hardware.

If you take the mentality that "These hardware vendors don't support Linux", then you are going to approach the problem from the angle of convincing the hardware vendors to support Linux, which is a much more practical and realistic approach.

Although I make an effort to avoid using Windows whenever possible I completely understand your point of view Ynneb. I began using Macs in the early nineties and later Windows 95 and today continue to use OSX and XP. If I could I would love to switch perminantly to Gnu/Linux but sadly do not because Gnu/Linux doesn't fulfill all my requirements. I wish it did.

My main reason for trying Ubuntu was mostly because of the frustration I experience daily with Windows regarding security. I simply hate running virus and spyware software, which in my experience are way too intrusive. With Ubuntu I am free from that hassle plus startup times are much faster than with Windows.

That said, I reckon there will always be teething problems for anybody attempting to move to Linux. For instance I was quite surprised at how much work I had to do to get to play a commercial DVD. Downloading restricted formats and the like required a sort of re-education, I mean, I really hadn't understood until using Gnu/Linux how much licencing control there is out there. I should also like to point out that Paint.NET isn't free software, they just don't charge you for it and I believe Microsoft want to patent the .NET frameworks which is simply outrageous.

I agree with you about the graphic card driver. My machine performs much better graphically when I boot from Windows. I regularly use PC remote control software LogMeIn, which is pretty much unusable under Linux as the screen refresh is so pathetically slow. I run the generic ati driver which works sufficiently for regular use. When I tried to install ATI proprietry driver I have just ended up in trouble with X.

All in all I will continue to use Gnu/Linux as much as possible as I have really got into the whole free software ethics thing, which I find refreshing and inspiring in this messed up world. Oh Yeah!

I can sympathize with the thread starter.

I run both linux and windows. I'm a gamer, and a techie. I also use linux at work, so I have to know how to use it. However, its totally incapable of playing games on my PC. I use an ATI card and linux just doesn't have any working drivers (mainly gpu fan speed control), and before I get hammered by the nVidia fanboys, I use ATI for video editing, playback and DX10.1 work also, which is far superior than any nVidia card can offer.

I do like linux though, and what it can do. I _want to change_, but I cannot due to driver restrictions.

So for me, Linux is on my laptop as a kinda "workbench" for learning and XP is on my main PC for all the gameing and editing I do.

For the record, I kinda have the same feelings regarding XP and Vista. I actually like Vista, it was running beautifully on my Old PC before the motherboard went "pop". Vista does alot more of what "I" want. Now I have a spanking new PC, practicly all spanking new and latest hardware, Vista and even Vista SP1 is so unstable that its just unusable and I was forced to step backwards too XP.

If Linux had a working set of drivers for my X-Fi sound card and my HD4850 Video card, and was able to play my games, like CoH, guildwars, etc. Then Maybe I would Turn to Linux 100%

lord_lethris said: I use an ATI card and linux just doesn't have any working drivers (mainly gpu fan speed control), and before I get hammered by the nVidia fanboys, I use ATI for video editing, playback and DX10.1 work also, which is far superior than any nVidia card can offer.

I agree. nVidia doesn't hold a candle to ATI in a lot of areas. I use Kubuntu full time with my ATI card and get by alright, but I don't do video editing or play video games, so I can do that. The only thing I lose is Compiz, because it's broken with ATI drivers.

Although I read somewhere that there's "supposedly" a fix in the works for 9.04 with this ATI problem. Granted, I'm not holding my breath - this problem has been around for years - but it's nice to think they might finally be coming around and fixing it.

Guess we'll have to wait till April. :)

IMO Linux and Windows need to go together.

I like Linux, I like the way when you press teh pause button the music stops, even if the app playing is several workspaces away, or how when you rename a file the filename is selected but not the extension and I like the way you can type in nautilus and it goes to the nearest file.

However, I like with windows going into a shop and buying software and knowing that it will work 80% of the time flawlessly.

Also, if I am honest, the think that keeps me in Windows is MSN, and 3D games.

He forgot a few things XP is better at than Linux.

1. Viruses
2. Spyware
3. Security holes

Yes, if you want a Trojan to steal your identity and/or passwords then XP is the one.

He quotes that Linux does not need drivers. Hooey. The drivers are part of the kernel.

The OP quotes software like OO and Firefox. Why pay for, install Windows, and then go download and install these apps when they are right there?

who? Ynneb? No he didnt ;)

As he stated, there are driver issues with HIS hardware (also my issue) More to do with games than anything else.

You have a few misconceptions.

ynneb said: I love the way it installs,either as live or through a GUI interface, similar to Windows. This in itself gets 10 out of 10.

As far as I can tell, the installer is not similar to Windows. Windows has no live environment, and the GUI is strictly minimal.

Drivers are my main concern. The idea that one size fits all for drivers does not work for me. I get far better graphics performance on the same computer running windows. While it may be hailed as good that Lunux does not require drivers, I would much prefere to install drivers that are written specifically for my hardware than one size fits all, drivers as with Linux.

It is possible (and recommended) to use drivers that are made specifically for your hardware. Many of them are even included on the Ubuntu install disc, unlike Windows (hey look, another difference between the installers). Ubuntu doesn't force you to use a 'one size fits all' driver.

Firefox works as well in XP as with Linux, and you can use your scroll mouse in it with XP...

You can use your scroll mouse in Firefox the same way as in XP, the only difference is that you have to enable that function manually. I'm not sure why it isn't enabled by default.

The navigation and files structures are different enough to be a pain to learn for a new user.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but lets be realistic, how complicated is it? You put your own files in the home folder and its subdirectories, and you can practically ignore the rest of your file system as you would with system files in Windows.

Great effort guys for an unpaid team of volunteers.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Ubuntu was slapped together by a 'team of unpaid volunteers.' Was it because anyone can modify and redistribute it? Maybe it was because the program is free (of charge)? Many Linux developers are paid for their work just like other computer programmers.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you returning to Windows (use what you decide is right for you) and I'm not trying to flame you. But the fact is, a handful of half-truths do no one any good.

I will check Back in a years time to see you the cross over has advanced any further.

I hope you have better luck with Linux when you return.

Well, I personally feel that a philips head screwdriver is much better than a flathead one.

Russo

russo.mic said: Well, I personally feel that a philips head screwdriver is much better than a flathead one.

Russo

philips head screwdrivers are for noobs who don't understand that you can use the flathead one for almost any type of screw.

:lolflag:

lykwydchykyn said: Point is, if you take the mentality "Linux doesn't support my hardware", then you think it's a problem with Linux and you start posting to the "linux community" that they need to support this or that hardware.

If you take the mentality that "These hardware vendors don't support Linux", then you are going to approach the problem from the angle of convincing the hardware vendors to support Linux, which is a much more practical and realistic approach.

+1. I'm not one for nitpicking over semantics, but it's pretty relevant in this instance. :)

Funny, i have an ati x1650 on this ubuntu machine and it runs half life 2 (and a whole slew of 3d games) like a charm. By the way be sure to check out Quake Wars: Enemy Territory!!!! If you haven't yet, go get the linux demo! :p

|{urse said: Funny, i have an ati x1650 on this ubuntu machine and it runs half life 2 (and a whole slew of 3d games) like a charm. By the way be sure to check out Quake Wars: Enemy Territory!!!! If you haven't yet, go get the linux demo! :p

Mine will play games if I tell it to; just not while Desktop Effects are enabled.

Fortunately for me I don't play games, but the Compiz effects along with an ATI card make even watching a video file a very - ah - flickering experience.

But I flat refuse to buy nVidia junk. So I guess it's a wash till ATI gets their crap together and fixes the drivers, and then Compiz gets *their* crap together and fixes whatever bug is causing all the problems. :P

ynneb said: XP is better than any Linux distro (IMO)

I'm sure some may take this as a flame, while others will take it as an insult, but I wish to explain why I think this.

yeah probably, the subject is slightly inflammatory, but none the less, I always enjoy reading these posts; sometimes I even learn something.

Ubuntu has been my first Linux expereince. Ubuntu has made Linux very usable for new users, and has led the way for many to easily cross over. I love the way it installs,either as live or through a GUI interface, similar to Windows. This in itself gets 10 out of 10. Since using Ubuntu, it has awakened me to Linux. I have installed heaps of other distributions to see what they were like as well. Some installed easily while others lost me with choices I knew nothing about. Ubuntu made the choices minimal and easy to understand. I used Ubuntu for 2 months to see if I could break my Windows addiction. There wasnt much I couldnt do, but in the end I find myself typing to you from a XP environment.

In the end you just have to use what works for you.

WHY?

Drivers are my main concern. The idea that one size fits all for drivers does not work for me. I get far better graphics performance on the same computer running windows. While it may be hailed as good that Lunux does not require drivers, I would much prefere to install drivers that are written specifically for my hardware than one size fits all, drivers as with Linux.

I agree, I install drivers for my specific hardware, and I only buy hardware that has linux support; viz. Nvidia, Intel, Dell, HP, etc.. etc...

I have also found that there is loads of free software that works just as well in XP as in Linux. Open office works in XP, Paint.net is free and even is better than GIMP in terms of all the plugns you can get for it. Firefox works as well in XP as with Linux, and you can use your scroll mouse in it with XP, plus it has some small but annoying bugs in Linux.

I have never even installed all of the plugins for The Gimp, My scroll mouse wheel operates perfectly with Firefox under Ubuntu and every other Distro I have tried. As far as bugs go, I tolerate the very few bugs I run into much better than the endless bugs and relentless infections I dealt with in Windows.

Yes Linux is free,but I dont mind paying for something that you know has most of the issues worked out. And you can get the same free software to run in it.

I have read that the word "free" has been considered a poor choice for a long time. Free in the Linux world means "Freedom", though it also generally means "No Monetary Cost". As far as "No Cost", that Unicorn has yet to be captured, everything costs something; with linux it means learning how to do things differently than one did them in Windows, or in OSX.

The navigation and files structures are different enough to be a pain to learn for a new user.

For many reasons I am sure; again, nothing is free of cost, this is not Windows, its not OSX, it is Linux, one must learn to do things the Linux way; If I were to move to OSX I would have to learn to do things the OSX way, and if I went back to Windows, I would have to get back in the swing of the Windows way.

I have some software that Linux just doesnt have an equivelent to. I cant run My tv capture card in Linux.

It is important to buy a tv capture card that is supported by Linux, Hauppage has several I understand.

Etc Etc.

I truelly appreciate EVERY thing that the Linux team have contributed, but there are still too many missing links for me to stay in the Linux domain.

Great effort guys for an unpaid team of volunteers. I will check Back in a years time to see you the cross over has advanced any further.

Regards Benny

There is actually quite a lot of money pumped into development, its not all free of monetary cost to make this stuff happen. Again, in the end there is no wrong OS, there is only the OS that works for you. I prefer Linux, in specific I prefer Ubuntu; for me Ubuntu is better than Windows XP, for you its not. Good Luck, and you have my respect for being open minded enough to try something different, and for being intelligent enough to know it wasn't working out for your situation.

Rob

I use a logitech wireless mouse and keyboard as does my wife ( well she did until a few weeks ago when hers died after 7yrs of use.) In all the various OSs I have tried I have never had them not work OOTB, scroll and all. When I bought the first set I knew nothing about Linux, never heard of it. I bought them to go with my first computer in 2000.

XP lost me demanding continual, lengthy upgades, sometimes taking more than an hour to complete. In the first month of XP I must've downloaded GB's of updates, .net bits, virus updated and so on.

I was continually hyper-alert for viruses, dodgy websites and spyware...

It took ages to load, ages to shut down. I found my software talking to someone/thing over the net and I had no idea what was going on.

I felt that my computer wasn't really mine, just leased from Microsoft.

The final insult was trying to move QuarkXpress and Photoshop from my old i486 running 95 to my AMD1900 running XP.

I couldn't believe that Microsoft wouldn't have some level of compatibility between the two versions of MSBackup. What complete and total disregard for the customer.

This lead to several days of trying to configure a network, soldering a modem lead and in the end having to zip the files and send them over Hyperterminal at 115kb/s

So, little by little, I found myself booting XP, especially when all I needed to do was simple stuff; and now, it's there but just doesn't get used very much at all.

Photoshop 4 seems to run fine under Wine, and I expect Quark to do so as well.

I just don't really need Windows anymore.

stalkingwolf said: I use a logitech wireless mouse and keyboard as does my wife ( well she did

until a few weeks ago when hers died after 7yrs of use.) In all the various OSs I have tried I have never had them not work OOTB, scroll and all. When I bought the first set I knew nothing about Linux, never heard of it. I bought them to go with my first computer in 2000.

I have a *Microsoft* wireless keyboard and mouse, for God's sake, and they've worked OOTB with every version of Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Sabayon, Kubuntu, openSUSE, PCLinoxOS, and Linux Mint that I've installed. Scroll always works, and most of the hot-keys (aka "Play" button, or "E-Mail" button) on the keyboard work as well. :D

jrock612 said: Mine will play games if I tell it to; just not while Desktop Effects are enabled.

Fortunately for me I don't play games, but the Compiz effects along with an ATI card make even watching a video file a very - ah - flickering experience.

But I flat refuse to buy nVidia junk. So I guess it's a wash till ATI gets their crap together and fixes the drivers, and then Compiz gets *their* crap together and fixes whatever bug is causing all the problems. :P

Hey, good news, you can fix that flicker! run this command..

gstreamer-properties

click the tab that says video,

from the drop-down menu, select the option that says noXV

*poof no flickery video (hopefully)

Linux is all about choice and freedom. With XP you get the same thing, as everything else and you can't customize it much. Maybe it's better for new users, but that's very limiting for people, who like to make things their way. Just look at GNU/Linux screenshots, every desktop is completely different.

|{urse said: Hey, good news, you can fix that flicker! run this command..

gstreamer-properties

click the tab that says video,

from the drop-down menu, select the option that says noXV

*poof no flickery video (hopefully)

It tells me that package isn't installed and that I can get it by typing "sudo apt-get install gnome-media".

Trouble is, I have Kubuntu and KDE 4.2

Or does that matter?

Actually don't even need that. Can go to preferences in VLC, to video, and change output to X11. Works like a charm. :cool:

Thanks for the heads up! I'd never even heard of noXV. :)

magnus0 said: Linux is all about choice and freedom. With XP you get the same thing, as everything else and you can't customize it much. Maybe it's better for new users, but that's very limiting for people, who like to make things their way. Just look at GNU/Linux screenshots, every desktop is completely different.

Then I must be missing somethng then. I find with XP you can customize nearly every thing you want, up to the finist detail. In Ubuntu, I cant even see how you can set the size of desktop icons, should be pretty basic.

I have wanted to switch to Linux since Windows 2000. And I will agree with the OP that XP-sp2 is a very good and solid OS. (Maybe Microsoft's best). But I want to be free of Microsoft. I have watched them drive companies out of business, change their license agreement from user specific to machine specific, and the bottom line for me is I just don't trust them any more.

I started trying to use Linux with Debian back in 1998, but couldn't get my sound card working and was a total noob. I tried Mandrake which was nice, but buggy, then a few years later, Novel SuSe (OpenSuSe) installed flawlessly but still a little quirky. Stumbled on Xandros and thought that finally Linux had grown up. Xandros was good, installed flawlessly, and for a windows noob I could do almost everything by pointing and clicking. Then when my system needed an update, I gave UBUNTU a try. I am hooked now, this is the best OS for me! I love it and while I still have a windows partition, I hardly ever use it and then just for some old utility that I can't get working in WINE.

I am a Ubuntu fan, and glad to be part of the party.

ynneb said: Then I must be missing somethng then. I find with XP you can customize nearly every thing you want, up to the finist detail.

In Ubuntu, I cant even see how you can set the size of desktop icons, should be pretty basic. It is very basic, R-click on the icon, choose "Stretch Icon" drag and drop resize it to the size you desire, done; how much easier do you require?

starcannon said: It is very basic, R-click on the icon, choose "Stretch Icon" drag and drop resize it to the size you desire, done; how much easier do you require?

That changes one icon. Isnt there a global setting as in XP?

Also how can I set up a two teer taskbar the same way that xp allows.One that autohides as one unit, not two.

Delete one taskbar (R-click then Delete this panel) then R-click the other bar and add to panel anything else you want on there from the bar you deleted, set to auto-hide.

Changing all icon sizes, open Nautilus(file browser)

Places>Home [INDENT]Edit>Preferences [INDENT]Views Tab Icon View Defaults [INDENT]Default Zoom Level (adjust this till you find something you like) [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]That'll do it. Again, all GUI, it can't really be any easier; to be honest, I think what your suffering from is a new rat maze. Take time to learn your new environment, its not windows, its never going to be windows, and I think once you accept that, and learn the linux way of doing things that you'll be quite pleased and impressed; if not, well theres always OSX or Windows.

ynneb said: Then I must be missing somethng then. I find with XP you can customize nearly every thing you want, up to the finist detail.

In Ubuntu, I cant even see how you can set the size of desktop icons, should be pretty basic.

I can't speak for GNOME since I don't use it, but in KDE and XFCE there's a dialog in the control panels for this kind of stuff, it's pretty much like in XP.

No offense but if you think XP is greatly configurable compared to Linux, you certainly are missing quite a lot. Maybe you need to spend some quality time with a KDE 3 distro (KDE 4.2 will be awesome when it comes out, 4.1 not so much). I guess if hardware support is your big concern, it might be moot; but frankly it didn't take me long before I saw some things in Linux that made it worth working around the hardware.

lykwydchykyn said: No offense but if you think XP is greatly configurable compared to Linux, you certainly are missing quite a lot.

Took the words right outta my mouth. I almost choked on my tea when I saw that post. You and I are most certainly on the same brainwave. :P

Ah well...you know what they say about great minds, and all that. :)

i didnt know about the resizing of icons till this post, thank you :p

otherwise, even the basic UI options in system and appearance offered as much choice as xp ever did, and i know theres a lot more out there on offer!

otherwise, i changed theme only, and quite happy with it, im having real problems installing icon packages, they seem to be set properly in the customize menu, but aint having no effect on my icons themselves, small niggle though, certainly no reason to return to microshaft for me :)

Haha yea. I mean I do think that Windows has its own uses, but really if anyone really thinks anything made by MS is superior, they are missing more than a few brain cells.

You cannot say that and expect people to agree. First of all, both "equipments" offer a lot of common features that everyone can use and some specific features some may find sufficient, others may not. My impression is something like this:

Windows is like driving a car, very expensive and fancy, with all the gizmo's and gadgets (for which you paid dearly at purchase). The gearbox is automatic, seats are heated, and you can find tons of stuff (more or less expensive) to customize it to your preferences. Anything you might need, you can buy and there's a lot of people to "help" you implement it. You love the luxury it provides and the quality of build (with a few exceptions, usually quickly eliminated). Without being an expert, you can learn how to tune every single bit of it and you'll get it to look and feel exactly how you want it. Linux, on the other hand, is like one of those exotic super-cars (Nissan Skyline comes to my mind). No automatic gearbox, race seats and very few people who can really teach you how to drive or modify it. Parts are scarce and not many garages know how to install them. There's a fine community of volunteers that will help you, though, if you can find them and have the luck of getting their attention. But, once you get the hang of it and learn how to drive and fiddle with it... it's addictive! More than that, you can begin the real "customization" and you find yourself handling stuff that only expert people handle, do things you previously thought were the privilege of programmers. etc etc... So, people have different tastes, in clothes, cars and, of course, operating systems. The good part is that, unlike the clothes and cars, if you crash them, you can always reinstall them. I've been using Windows for about ten - eleven years, now, and I'm very satisfied with it. I intend to use Ubuntu for at least the same amount of time, but that doesn't mean I will throw away Windows. I can live with them both. When I need comfort I know where to go, when excitement, the other way.

Several things so bear with me.

The scroll mouse thing. My first excursion into linux was RedHat 8. I had the Logitech wireless mouse & keyboard that as I mentioned earlier just died. They both worked with no configuration necessary as I recall. Even scroll. I still use a wireless logitech mouse and keyboard and everything still works with no configuration needed. As I have learned lately during recurring flareups of the dreaded "fat finger syndrome" there are even some "hot keys" that work. This has to be OOTB. I damn sure didnt configure them. I didnt even know they were there!

On to the drivers thing.

I have an EEE PC 701 that I bought for work. It is running EEEUbuntu 8.04.1. On occasion I create forms and such for my department to use. I also keep monthly inspections of various things on it. The other day I needed to print a completed form out for my boss.

I had three choices, 1 wait til I got home and print it on my desktop. I really hate giving my time to people who dont give a ****.

2 transfer the needed document to a thumb drive when I got home to print it later from a co. workstation. See #1

I got the OK from the GM and plugged one of these HP laserjets into my EEE. 45sec later I got the "printer recognized will use XXX driver." 15 sec later the Doc was printed. I mean done, finished, completed.

1. try printing it direct from one of the printers provided for guest use.

For those that think Ubuntu is to difficult , I have set up Edubuntu for 3 6 yr olds and a 4 yr old. They love it. That is 1 6 yrold and 1 4 yr old love it when they can get their unemployed grandfather of the poker sites, another of the 6 yr olds loves it when she can get her mother to stop playing same gnome so she can draw and paint and play her games and such.

But please if XP works for you have at it.

It all depends on what you use it for ... I have worked in the high tech field for 20 years, and the trend in the industry is moving towards Linux, mostly Redhat Enterprise distro. Linux is open source and powerful.

adrian.todireanu said:

Windows is like driving a car, very expensive and fancy, with all the gizmo's and gadgets (for which you paid dearly at purchase). The gearbox is automatic, seats are heated, and you can find tons of stuff (more or less expensive) to customize it to your preferences.

Linux is very much like making love to a beautiful woman. You need to relax, treat her gently at first, dont just leap into her GUI stuff, you need to admire her accessories, play with her bits, and when you have a mutual understanding, you can install the juicy stuff through her backend, then make her work for you..

Any Linux distro is better than XP (IMO).

I a complete newb,i've used XP Pro for some time. It'll be interesting experience,for me,i've just encountered my 1st problem,so it'll be a challenge,and will be interesting to see how the solution compares with Windows. I had ubuntu installed Xmas eve,but just finished a couple of XP stuff. But today i thought "It's time i got stuck in".I was shown ubuntu in action over Xmas by a friend,and i was really impressed. Thanks in advance.:)

glotz said: Any Linux distro is better than XP (IMO).

+.5

XP isn't a bad OS. It's not a good OS, either, but it's not bad.

For me personally, using Linux feels like more freedom than sitting with Windows systems which often gets different infections. And in this regard, all versions of Windows feel like crap in comparison to Linux.

I prefer Linux over any version of Windows any day, but since game developers has chosen Windows, then Windows is still the best OS for gaming.

I think that the development and continued support of the Wine application can make more users more interested in Linux since they no longer need to buy the Windows operating system in order to run Windows applications.

I think XP works pretty good in comparison to Linux, but since XP is retired since service pack 3, I think that Linux will be even better in the future than what it is today in comparison to what the XP operating system can perform today.

The better OS is wich you like the most :popcorn:

khelben1979 said: For me personally, using Linux feels like more freedom than sitting with Windows systems which often gets different infections.

This comment always amazes me, because I used Windows for fourteen years, and I never had a virus, major spyware infection, or anything else. Either I was really careful or really lucky.

All my problems with Windows were from performance and customizability standpoints.

Ah well, to each his/her own. :)

jrock612 said: This comment always amazes me, because I used Windows for fourteen years, and I never had a virus, major spyware infection, or anything else. Either I was really careful or really lucky.

All my problems with Windows were from performance and customizability standpoints.

Ah well, to each his/her own. :)

+1 If you know what your doing, and your not stupid enough to open that email that says...

[INDENT][COLOR="DimGray"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]*"Hi, I'm Ivor Bonner from Borkleys Bank, we're updating our system, please open the attached file "bork.ur.hdd.gen.exe" and fill in your bank details"*[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT]

...and you have the proper protection in place, then you can pritty much protect your Windows PC from viruses and hackers.

Besides, the Virus argument also make me laff, because its compleatly errelivent. Viruses are more common on windows based PC's because its the most likley format to target businesses. When Linux becomes more popular within company "desktops" solutions, then we will probably see a range of viruses appearing for linux... unfortunatly, thats the way the world works. If you want to cause destruction, you attack the more popular format.

"Clames" that linux is untouchable is just billy b*llsh*te too me. If a hacker is dedicated enough, he/she can crack anything, inc Linux. They haven't bothered so far, because its not popular umungst company "desktops".

Prime example, remember the "I'm a PC and I got the flu - I'm a MAC and I haven't" advert?, you want to know the reason why they stopped that advert?, because some little hacker said "f*k you MAC" and wrote a virus for the MAC, just to prove it can be done ;)

What makes Linux likable, is peoples tastes. I like its skinability, and cusomization, and lack of resource hogging. I also program in perl, and its a good format to do that in. It has a freash and clean feel to it, it has alot of applications I find very usefull, especially KMoney, and I would be lieing if I said the opensource isnt appealing ;)

To say "I like linux because its Virus free and secure" is very disalutional.

I agree, XP is not bad, but it is security is a little iffy. Granted that if you know what you are doing then it is unlikely that anything major will happen to you.

Though we can all agree that XP ages rather quickly, it always starts off fast but then it slows down quite a bit, leading to long tedious de-fragmentation sessions. Also the registry can get cluttered really fast, not to mention the .dll file that gets corrupted every once in a while.

All that being said, I still dual boot ubuntu and XP, with all its flaws it still serves me rather well and since I already own the license I might as well use it.

Without XP my desktop would not be complete, we all know that there are several pieces of hardware and apps that won't run on linux, so XP is there as a safety net.

Afterall linux is all about choice, and I choose to dual boot :D

Besides, the Virus argument also make me laff, because its compleatly errelivent. Viruses are more common on windows based PC's because its the most likley format to target businesses. When Linux becomes more popular within company "desktops" solutions, then we will probably see a range of viruses appearing for linux... unfortunatly, thats the way the world works. If you want to cause destruction, you attack the more popular format.

If that is true, then why aren't there any viruses for GNU/Linux servers. GNU/Linux server have at least 60% of the market.

"Clames" that linux is untouchable is just billy b*llsh*te too me. If a hacker is dedicated enough, he/she can crack anything, inc Linux. They haven't bothered so far, because its not popular umungst company "desktops".

There are GNU/Linux botnets.

If that is true, then why aren't there any viruses for GNU/Linux servers. GNU/Linux server have at least 60% of the market.

Because if you attack a server, 90% it stops at the server. it might cause a bit of jip and server down time, but not alot.

Windows based servers have very little "specific" viruses in comparison to desktop viruses, even though tecnicly its the same code, servers have no real major spread factor because theres no human interactivity ie there is no one there to hit "ok" or "volantarely" open infected files. Maybe a virus can copy itself to other shares via a vbs script and an over looked security hole, but thats where the threat stops, so its not worth the bother.

And its the same for Linux servers. And I believe 99% if all linux servers are GUI free (they are in our case), so there is even less of a threat.

Where as if you attack a desktop it'll more likely spread. Here is a possable Linux situation - imagine I small piece of code that uses the same method that the calender does to access your e-mail client ;) only instead of accessing the calender dates, it accesses the contacts section, then proceeds to forward itself to everyone in that persons contact list via its own embeded SMTP protocal. Just a thought ;)

There are GNU/Linux botnets

There is indeed. So again, the "I like Linux because its virus free and secure" argumant is invalid... and still makes me chuckle.

Without sounding like an ar$e (and I meen this in the nicest sence), the people who do use that argument are the type of people who just want to follow a different trend and insist that its the right thing to do, without actually knowing the real facts because there mate the plummer from the pub told them so because he herd it from a fisherman who knows this guy who can talk to dogs through a "special pipe" and Cliffered the one eyed springer-spaniel said "Rinux Ris Rirus Ree Ran Recure... WOOF!".

Where as the rest of us like Linux for our own "genuine" individual reasons, but do understand why other people stick to windows.

stefangr1 said: Windows

market share: 90% price: $100

Linux market share: 1% price: free

What kind of market share? The number of linux devices out there is way superior to the number of windows devices ;)

adrian.todireanu said: Windows is like driving a car, very expensive and fancy, with all the gizmo's and gadgets (for which you paid dearly at purchase).

With vanilla Windows you can't do anything....

lord_lethris said: Besides, the Virus argument also make me laff, because its compleatly errelivent. Viruses are more common on windows based PC's because its the most likley format to target businesses. When Linux becomes more popular within company "desktops" solutions, then we will probably see a range of viruses appearing for linux... unfortunatly, thats the way the world works. If you want to cause destruction, you attack the more popular format.

Well, I'd rather write a virus for servers than one that just works on desktop... looking at all those banking server or google for exampls, it's a lot more interesting... Number of base installs have no direct correlation to the number of malware written for that OS ;) Besides, if you want clear destruction, you will target the internet itself, hence servers ;)

lord_lethris said: Because if you attack a server, 90% it stops at the server. it might cause a bit of jip and server down time, but not alot.

Windows based servers have very little "specific" viruses in comparison to desktop viruses, even though tecnicly its the same code, servers have no real major spread factor because theres no human interactivity ie there is no one there to hit "ok" or "volantarely" open infected files. Maybe a virus can copy itself to other shares via a vbs script and an over looked security hole, but thats where the threat stops, so its not worth the bother.

And its the same for Linux servers. And I believe 99% if all linux servers are GUI free (they are in our case), so there is even less of a threat.

Where as if you attack a desktop it'll more likely spread. Here is a possable Linux situation - imagine I small piece of code that uses the same method that the calender does to access your e-mail client ;) only instead of accessing the calender dates, it accesses the contacts section, then proceeds to forward itself to everyone in that persons contact list via its own embeded SMTP protocal. Just a thought ;)

There is indeed. So again, the "I like Linux because its virus free and secure" argumant is invalid... and still makes me chuckle.

Without sounding like an ar$e (and I meen this in the nicest sence), the people who do use that argument are the type of people who just want to follow a different trend and insist that its the right thing to do, without actually knowing the real facts because there mate the plummer from the pub told them so because he herd it from a fisherman who knows this guy who can talk to dogs through a "special pipe" and Cliffered the one eyed springer-spaniel said "Rinux Ris Rirus Ree Ran Recure... WOOF!".

Where as the rest of us like Linux for our own "genuine" individual reasons, but do understand why other people stick to windows.

+1. Not only are you totally correct, but you managed to be a smart a** in the process of being totally correct.

I know it's not becoming, or nice, but it's damn entertaining.

Cheers. :)

May XP could has good things that I miss. But respecting about performance, I've found that ubuntu 8.10 is far superior than winXP in the same machine.

I'm making an OpenGL game engine and by doing profiling and benchmarking tests I found that the same routines run slower on WinXP (about 20% slowdowns measured in Microseconds). On OpenGL graphics I found that XP is slower by a downgrade to 50% of perfomance. Also I've experienced the same thing with 3D engines like Ogre or Irrlicht.

I have a Dell inspiron 1420 with core2 duo 7500, and its GPU is an Nvidia Geforce 8400M GS. May the slowdown with OpenGL on XP is caused because it has an outdated driver. I couldn't be able update the Windows NVIDIA driver further to the 169 version. (Newer versions are reserved to Vista)

khelben1979 said:

I prefer Linux over any version of Windows any day, but since game developers has chosen Windows, then Windows is still the best OS for gaming.

That is just an self-fulfilled myth about Windows. Windows is really a mediocre enviroment for gamming. The only reason of the predominance of Windows in the game market it's because most developers choose DirectX straight foward.

But I found that many OpenGL games run better and faster on Linux. Also I found that linux has more general performance in opensource game engines on my benchmarking.

Also I've found more availability of games on the linux enviroment and for free! Also many of the massive online game systems have support on linux.

I guess that in the near future Linux could rules the gamming market because:

• Despite what you've said, It really has better performance for gamming (But only if you have Nvidia hardware in my experience).

• The Massive Online Games will be predominant over the stand-alone titles, due of Piracy and the abuse of copy-protection methods.

• Most people will want more games for their Eee PCs and netbooks.

• There will be great Open source games supported by the community.

I just have a few comments to make. While I was avid Windows user, I prefer Linux Ubuntu. First off your thing about drivers being one-size-fits-all is not true. Most of the Linux drivers were developed by the company that created the hardware. For instance I have a nvidia 310M graphics card and have Nvidia drivers version 260.19 installed which is the newest for my graphics card. However windows has major issues with my graphics card it only installs version 256.19, this causes the computer to overheat and the driver to go missing at random times when I tried to play games. Second your approach to the topic is an insult in the fact that you think that a computer system that is almost a decade old can compete on the same level with a new system. Third while I will give you the fact that you can game in windows and not in Linux, I would like to point out the fact that you shouldn't play games on computers that's why gaming consoles were developed. They were made for gaming and have the required hardware for games, while peoples computers all can have different specs so you really can't compare gaming consoles to computers.

soad6 said: Third while I will give you the fact that you can game in windows and not in Linux

Huh? I play a lot of games in linux. There are hundreds available, and many of them are very good.

soad6 said: I would like to point out the fact that you shouldn't play games on computers that's why gaming consoles were developed.

Why shouldn't people play games on computers? That's a ridiculous statement. I shouldn't have to buy a separate machine just for games.

Ok back to sleep thread. Thread closed.