So you really think Linux is better than Vista, do you?

[PTravel]

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've had
some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of hacking
my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and not-particularly-powerful Linux
computer). I recently replaced my wife's old desktop with a new laptop, so
I thought this might be a nice time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an old slow
machine, but it was running Win2000 and doing it just fine. Ubuntu booted
from the CD, but failed to properly recognize the graphics card and came up
in 640 x 480 VGA mode. The installation screens were, evidently, hard-coded
for higher res -- I had to keep scrolling up and down to read them. I
finally got through the installation and rebooted. Okay, there was Ubuntu
with a pretty GUI -- but in VGA mode. Nothing I tried got it to change the
resolution of the display.

I decided I'd pop in another graphics card. I installed it and turned on
the machine. Ubuntu started to boot and then flashed a text message
indicating that it couldn't find the driver for my graphics card.

Okay, I'll just re-install from scratch.

This time, everything worked fine and, after 40 minutes or so, the computer
booted into the Ubuntu GUI in 1024 x 768 mode (the limits of the graphics
card that I had installed). The first thing it did was flash a warning:
Updates are available. I clicked on the Update button and discovered that
Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for, among
other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't
it?

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed. Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I open it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow -- very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what my wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos. They
played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of perhaps 6
frames a second. I decided to look at some videos on my network. Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to play .wmv, .mpg and
..mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec? I don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred direct from
a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it ran fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu Server.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error 18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30 pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like made, but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista. Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000, at least on my wife's old
machine. Linux is buggy. And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a lot
of specialized knowledge. I've been mucking around with computers since
high school (which was many decades ago). The first computer I programmed
was in a refrigerated room and was fed a deck of punch cards. I've written
in assembler, as well as higher level languages. I don't have trouble
configuring Windows machines (though I'm not, by any means, an average
user -- I know what I'm doing).

However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't know what
apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point, though, is
computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.

However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which is why
my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and running
under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will install by
Monday).

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

 

[Mark Rae]

...go ahead and...
LOL!

And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a lot of specialized knowledge.

That's certainly true. E.g. if you had downloaded the "alternative" CD,
you'd have had none of the graphics problems because it has a text
installation mode where you can set up the properties of your card
(including colour depth for VirtualPC etc etc) before the GUI loads...

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

It's free.

Er, that's about it...

 

[philo]

However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't know what
apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point, though, is
computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.

However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which is why
my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and running
under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will install by
Monday).

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

I've been dual booting Linux and Windows for maybe 6 years now.
Though Ubuntu seems to have gotten a lot of attention...I gave it a try
and was quite disappointed.

OTOH: Distributions such as Slackware or Fedora Core work exceedingly
well...
so I would not write Linux off totally...though it certainly does have a
learning curve.


Here is how I do it though...I use removable HD kits...
that way I can install Linux natively and not have to worry about destroying
some other OS in the process

 

[Richard Urban]

The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Stephan Rose]

Well lets see...I did something similar yesterday!

I decided to switch my desktop to the other desktop manager and setup my
partitions properly. Before I had everything onto one partition which is
bad. Old windows habit since it is virtually impossible there to keep the
OS isolated.

So I reinstalled Ubuntu, setup the partitions the way I liked them (32 gigs
for the OS / Application partition) and the remainder 260 gigs for /home
which is where all user data goes. Perfect!

Install took about 10 minutes...
Of course, loads in 1024x768 VESA driver...incredibly slow...
Then, unlike you, I went to my manufacturers website (nvidia in my case)
downloaded the video driver...installed it...reboot...ohh..lookie here!
1600x1200 and running at full speed.

This now about 20 minutes later...and now...I'm done beyond adding little
add on's I like. Beryl took another few minutes to download and add to auto
start.

So yea, you *might* want to consider installing the appropriate graphics
card driver on your wife's laptop..that should improve performance
drastically.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Alias]

The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!

Do you think you could be more bigoted? Are you also a member of the K.K.K.?

Alias

 

[PTravel]

That's certainly true. E.g. if you had downloaded the "alternative" CD,
you'd have had none of the graphics problems because it has a text
installation mode where you can set up the properties of your card
(including colour depth for VirtualPC etc etc) before the GUI loads...

I've downloaded the "alternative" CD. That's the one that ran for hours.
And I just checked it -- the installation bombed. I'm starting it over.
Who knows, maybe it will even work this time.

 

[Alias]

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've
had some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
hacking my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and
not-particularly-powerful Linux computer). I recently replaced my
wife's old desktop with a new laptop, so I thought this might be a nice
time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.

Alias

 

[NoStop]

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've had
some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of hacking
my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and not-particularly-powerful Linux
computer). I recently replaced my wife's old desktop with a new laptop,
so I thought this might be a nice time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an old
slow
machine, but it was running Win2000 and doing it just fine. Ubuntu booted
from the CD, but failed to properly recognize the graphics card and came
up
in 640 x 480 VGA mode. The installation screens were, evidently,
hard-coded
for higher res -- I had to keep scrolling up and down to read them. I
finally got through the installation and rebooted. Okay, there was Ubuntu
with a pretty GUI -- but in VGA mode. Nothing I tried got it to change
the resolution of the display.

I decided I'd pop in another graphics card. I installed it and turned on
the machine. Ubuntu started to boot and then flashed a text message
indicating that it couldn't find the driver for my graphics card.

Okay, I'll just re-install from scratch.

This time, everything worked fine and, after 40 minutes or so, the
computer booted into the Ubuntu GUI in 1024 x 768 mode (the limits of the
graphics
card that I had installed). The first thing it did was flash a warning:
Updates are available. I clicked on the Update button and discovered that
Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for, among
other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't
it?

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed. Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I open
it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow -- very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what my
wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos.
They played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of
perhaps 6
frames a second. I decided to look at some videos on my network. Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to play .wmv, .mpg and
.mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec? I
don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred direct
from
a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it ran
fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu Server.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error 18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30 pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like made,
but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista. Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000, at least on my wife's old
machine. Linux is buggy. And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a
lot
of specialized knowledge. I've been mucking around with computers since
high school (which was many decades ago). The first computer I programmed
was in a refrigerated room and was fed a deck of punch cards. I've
written
in assembler, as well as higher level languages. I don't have trouble
configuring Windows machines (though I'm not, by any means, an average
user -- I know what I'm doing).

However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't know
what
apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point, though, is
computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.

However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which is
why my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and
running under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will
install by Monday).

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

Thanks for the long diatribe and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that
even after decades of playing with computers, you still have much to learn.

Sorry, if I missed it, but I don't think you've told us how much RAM you
have in that box. Certainly the FIRST thing to check out is whether you
have the hardware to run a particular operating system. Ubuntu uses Gnome
which is fairly resource demanding (nothing close to Vista, but still does
have requirements). It sounds like you don't have the recommended 256MB
minimum RAM required. Yes, even 192MB or RAM will run Gnome if all you want
to do is run a few apps at a time. You could look at running the Xfce
Desktop environment instead of Gnome or KDE. This can be had by either
installing it on your existing Ubuntu box or installing Xubuntu. See ...

http://www.xubuntu.org/

Quote: "Xubuntu is a complete GNU/Linux based operating system with an
Ubuntu base. It is lighter on system requirements and tends to be more
efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE, since it uses the Xfce Desktop
environment, which makes it ideal for old or low-end machines, thin-client
networks, or for those who would like to get more performance out of their
hardware."

There was NO reason to reinstall the whole operating system to fix your
graphics problems. Had you done a little investigation, you would have
found the easy solution to your problem. But I guess googling is beyond
your present capability?

Finally you tell us that you want this box to run simply as a file server on
your existing windows network. Then you don't need to concern yourself with
a GUI at all, as servers typically run headless. That box will work in that
role very well, but again, you'll have to do some reading as to how to set
it up and this appears to be an inherent problem you have. But should you
accomplish this rather mundane task, I'm sure you'll be more than
pleasantly surprised at how you'll be able to extend the usefulness of this
old hardware.

Cheers.

--
The "Wow" starts now.

Windows is not a virus! Viruses are small, efficient and built to get a job
done. Windows on the other hand ...

 

[Robert Moir]

The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!

I'd love to be able to say I expected better from you, but to be honest, I
didn't.

 

[PTravel]

Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.

Alias

I tried them both. I'm trying 6.10 again. If it works, I'll post back
here.

 

[PTravel]

Thanks for the long diatribe and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that
even after decades of playing with computers, you still have much to
learn.

Of course I do. You've missed the point, which is: for even a relatively
sophisticated computer user, Linux isn't a viable alternative.

Sorry, if I missed it, but I don't think you've told us how much RAM you
have in that box.

Which box? My wife's box has 352 meg which, as I indicated, was enough to
run Win2000 satisfactorily. My laptop has 2 gig. I've allocated 512 meg
for the Virtual PC that's running (or trying to run) Ubuntu.

Certainly the FIRST thing to check out is whether you
have the hardware to run a particular operating system. Ubuntu uses Gnome
which is fairly resource demanding (nothing close to Vista, but still does
have requirements). It sounds like you don't have the recommended 256MB
minimum RAM required. Yes, even 192MB or RAM will run Gnome if all you
want
to do is run a few apps at a time.

It ran. Just not well, and not as well as Win2000 on the same machine.

You could look at running the Xfce
Desktop environment instead of Gnome or KDE. This can be had by either
installing it on your existing Ubuntu box or installing Xubuntu. See ...

http://www.xubuntu.org/

Quote: "Xubuntu is a complete GNU/Linux based operating system with an
Ubuntu base. It is lighter on system requirements and tends to be more
efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE, since it uses the Xfce Desktop
environment, which makes it ideal for old or low-end machines, thin-client
networks, or for those who would like to get more performance out of their
hardware."

With all due respect, what's the point? I really want to set up my wife's
box as a Linux server. I've installed the Ubuntu server three times now. I
already described the Error 18 problem. I looked it up on the internet and
corrected the partitioning. Re-installed. Ubuntu started to boot, got past
GRUB where it failed previously, then spontaneously re-booted. Tried
re-installing it again. Same result.

There was NO reason to reinstall the whole operating system to fix your
graphics problems. Had you done a little investigation, you would have
found the easy solution to your problem. But I guess googling is beyond
your present capability?

Of course I googled. There are two approaches to resolving the graphics
issue, both of which involve installing in text mode and then exiting the
graphic interface and manually editing the xorg.conf file. The only problem
is, the first method (hitting CTL-ALT-F1 once inside the Ubuntu graphics
interface) didn't work. For whatever reason, it didn't force and exit to
the console. I'm trying the other method now, but it requires accessing the
install console, i.e. I have to reinstall.

Why is it that the Linux people always have to be snide?

No, googling isn't beyond my present capability. Is being civil beyond
yours?

Finally you tell us that you want this box to run simply as a file server
on
your existing windows network. Then you don't need to concern yourself
with
a GUI at all, as servers typically run headless. That box will work in
that
role very well, but again, you'll have to do some reading as to how to set
it up and this appears to be an inherent problem you have. But should you
accomplish this rather mundane task, I'm sure you'll be more than
pleasantly surprised at how you'll be able to extend the usefulness of
this
old hardware.

My hope was to install Ubuntu server and run it under webadmin. I'm going
to have to find another solution, but that's not appropriate for discussion
in this group, which is devoted to Vista.

Again, my point was, for anyone who thinks Linux is a viable alternative to
Vista, they'd better be prepared for a far steeper learning curve and a lot
more problems.

 

[Darkelldar]

Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.

Alias

I gave Linux a try as well with bad results. Downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 cut the
CD and tried to run the on disk version. It would shut down my monitor due
to timing issues. The monitor would go into sleep mode (LG 20" wide LCD) I
posted in Linux group and was told to use a CRT until I got it working. I
tossed out my last CRT 2 years ago.

Next I tried 6.10 and it did the same thing.

Next I tried Mandriva it did install but for some reason would not run the
KDE gui so I reinstalled and selected GNOME same thing could not get GUI to
run.

Downloaded openSUSE did the install it locked up. I unhooked all USB devices
and did the install again. All went OK. The screen was very slow to scroll
(1280 x 1024) so I got the ATI driver file. Printed off the 30 pages of
install instructions from SUSE and ATI. Followed them to the letter. I did
get the file compiled but it would not run. Came up with an error. No sound
card driver at all for it. The desktop compares to Win95/98. Why do you need
3 HD partitions for it. The file structure is a complete mess if you ask me
the directories make no sense at all. Even in Root it would not let me run
some of the files to make the Driver file I had to change some file
permissions. that was enough for me. I did like the Firefox web browser.

I spent about 20 hours on this in total not counting DL time and could not
even get a video card driver installed.

It took about 2.5 hours to Backup my files Clean my HD, install Vista,
install all drivers, AV software, Office 2003, and World of Warcraft. I have
had some minor bugs that updated drivers have fixed.

This system has been powered up and running since Jan 20 2007 without Vista
crashing. I do not regret upgrading to Vista.

I have been around computers since 1979 and working with Linux put me back
to the MS-Dos and Windows 3.0 Days, even with MS-Dos and Win 3.0 The drivers
and programs had an Install program.

Windows is not perfect but Linux is farther from perfect in my opinion.

 

[Adam Albright]

I'd love to be able to say I expected better from you, but to be honest, I
didn't.

My take, people endlessly evangelizing for Macs or Linux should be
treated as the TROLLS they are. This is a Microsoft support group for
Vista. Not some other browser, not some other operating system.

For idiots, and nobody kid yourself, idiots is what they are to
constantly nag people that already are Windows users, many who have
already purchased Vista or likely will at some point is beyond being
rude. There is no need to be subjected to constant nagging about how
product X is so much better. Doing so day after day like a few clods
do is the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater.

There are rules of conduct and these morons are clearly out of order.
They are deliberately with hostile intention trying to distrup this
newsgroup and should be shown the contempt they so richly deserve.

 

[Alias]

I gave Linux a try as well with bad results. Downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 cut
the CD and tried to run the on disk version. It would shut down my
monitor due to timing issues. The monitor would go into sleep mode (LG
20" wide LCD) I posted in Linux group and was told to use a CRT until I
got it working. I tossed out my last CRT 2 years ago.

Next I tried 6.10 and it did the same thing.

Next I tried Mandriva it did install but for some reason would not run
the KDE gui so I reinstalled and selected GNOME same thing could not get
GUI to run.

Downloaded openSUSE did the install it locked up. I unhooked all USB
devices and did the install again. All went OK. The screen was very slow
to scroll (1280 x 1024) so I got the ATI driver file. Printed off the 30
pages of install instructions from SUSE and ATI. Followed them to the
letter. I did get the file compiled but it would not run. Came up with
an error. No sound card driver at all for it. The desktop compares to
Win95/98. Why do you need 3 HD partitions for it. The file structure is
a complete mess if you ask me the directories make no sense at all. Even
in Root it would not let me run some of the files to make the Driver
file I had to change some file permissions. that was enough for me. I
did like the Firefox web browser.

I spent about 20 hours on this in total not counting DL time and could
not even get a video card driver installed.

It took about 2.5 hours to Backup my files Clean my HD, install Vista,
install all drivers, AV software, Office 2003, and World of Warcraft. I
have had some minor bugs that updated drivers have fixed.

This system has been powered up and running since Jan 20 2007 without
Vista crashing. I do not regret upgrading to Vista.

I have been around computers since 1979 and working with Linux put me
back to the MS-Dos and Windows 3.0 Days, even with MS-Dos and Win 3.0
The drivers and programs had an Install program.

Windows is not perfect but Linux is farther from perfect in my opinion.

Strange, I installed Ubuntu and it took less than half an hour to
install, with no problems. It took about an hour to download the updates
and install them. Again, no problems. I then managed to mount the drives
from Windows on the other hard drive and was pleasantly surprised to see
that Ubuntu reads NTFS. I did not download Ubuntu. I ordered the CD.

Alias

 

[Alias]

My take, people endlessly evangelizing for Macs or Linux should be
treated as the TROLLS they are. This is a Microsoft support group for
Vista. Not some other browser, not some other operating system.

For idiots, and nobody kid yourself, idiots is what they are to
constantly nag people that already are Windows users, many who have
already purchased Vista or likely will at some point is beyond being
rude. There is no need to be subjected to constant nagging about how
product X is so much better. Doing so day after day like a few clods
do is the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater.

There are rules of conduct and these morons are clearly out of order.
They are deliberately with hostile intention trying to distrup this
newsgroup and should be shown the contempt they so richly deserve.

Calm down, Adam. We wouldn't want you to have a stroke.

Alias

 

[Adam Albright]

I gave Linux a try as well with bad results. Downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 cut the
CD and tried to run the on disk version. It would shut down my monitor due
to timing issues. The monitor would go into sleep mode (LG 20" wide LCD) I
posted in Linux group and was told to use a CRT until I got it working. I
tossed out my last CRT 2 years ago.

Next I tried 6.10 and it did the same thing.

Next I tried Mandriva it did install but for some reason would not run the
KDE gui so I reinstalled and selected GNOME same thing could not get GUI to
run.

Downloaded openSUSE did the install it locked up. I unhooked all USB devices
and did the install again. All went OK. The screen was very slow to scroll
(1280 x 1024) so I got the ATI driver file. Printed off the 30 pages of
install instructions from SUSE and ATI. Followed them to the letter. I did
get the file compiled but it would not run. Came up with an error. No sound
card driver at all for it. The desktop compares to Win95/98. Why do you need
3 HD partitions for it. The file structure is a complete mess if you ask me
the directories make no sense at all. Even in Root it would not let me run
some of the files to make the Driver file I had to change some file
permissions. that was enough for me. I did like the Firefox web browser.

I spent about 20 hours on this in total not counting DL time and could not
even get a video card driver installed.

It took about 2.5 hours to Backup my files Clean my HD, install Vista,
install all drivers, AV software, Office 2003, and World of Warcraft. I have
had some minor bugs that updated drivers have fixed.

This system has been powered up and running since Jan 20 2007 without Vista
crashing. I do not regret upgrading to Vista.

I have been around computers since 1979 and working with Linux put me back
to the MS-Dos and Windows 3.0 Days, even with MS-Dos and Win 3.0 The drivers
and programs had an Install program.

Windows is not perfect but Linux is farther from perfect in my opinion.

You just confirmed what I experienced years ago with seven different
flavors of Linux. Basically Linux is a toy for wannabe geeks that like
to pretend they are experts and constantly "play" with their computer.

Linux versions often aren't stable, they often have more issues then
Windows. There is little worthwhile support for any flavor. Finding
device drivers is at times next to impossible, if you do find them
they often don't work correctly. The software mostly is Mickey Mouse
grade. Nothing to interest any serious users. Which is why NO major
software house develops for that platform. Never have and likely never
will.

With apologizes to General Mills, "Silly rabbit, Trix is for kids".
Well Linux is for kids too. Kids that do little if anything beyond
simply installing Linux and love playing with a few crude, overly
simplistic next to useless non professional grade applications that
are up to what you could find on Windows 95 over a decade ago.

You want to get serious work done with your computer, Windows is the
only viable answer if you don't want some overpriced toy like computer
like a Mac. That explains why Windows has over 90% of the PC market.

 

[Alias]

You just confirmed what I experienced years ago with seven different
flavors of Linux.

"Years ago"? LOL! Linux has come a long way since then. Until you try
the latest fully supported Ubuntu, you're making everything you say up
as you go along.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

Strange, I installed Ubuntu and it took less than half an hour to install,
with no problems. It took about an hour to download the updates and
install them. Again, no problems. I then managed to mount the drives from
Windows on the other hard drive and was pleasantly surprised to see that
Ubuntu reads NTFS. I did not download Ubuntu. I ordered the CD.

Same here. If it hadn't installed, though, I would have blamed my
incompatible made-for-Windows hardware rather than the OS. People
installing Linux on Windows hardware are installing one OS on hardware
made solely for another. How many other operating systems can do that at
all, let alone do it as well as Linux and its BSD brethren do?

 

[Mike Gould]

I use both. I use Linux servers to run our databases. It has benchmarked
better under Linux than windows but all of our client side code is Windows
based. I've worked in many environments over my 25+ year career from IBM's
MVS, DOS, Unix, Windows and Linux. They all have their strong points and
weak points. It all depends on your specific needs. One of the reasons
that so many OS's are in the market and successful is because they all have
a use.

Best Regards,

Michael Gould