[Deleted]

[JudgeDredd]

I'd probably go with Linux, apart from the ease of sticking the Windows CD into the machine and installing.

AFAIK, there is no real easy way to install Linux. I'm also a little concerned about compatability with all my software.

But I'm all for an alternative (free is great, cheaper would be fine) to MS Windows.

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

AFAIK, there is no real easy way to install Linux.

Yes there is, has been for years. Take Ubuntu for example. you burn a bootable Live-CD. You boot your computer from that CD and it takes you to a fully-functional Linux (with GUI and all) that you can use without touching the OS on the HD at all. That way you can make sure everything is working. If you decide to install it, you click on the "Install Ubuntu" icon on the desktop, answer few questions and it installs the OS for you. After the install you eject the CD and boot in to you new OS. It really couldn't be any easier than that.

See for yourself

I'm also a little concerned about compatability with all my software.

Since your existing software is Windows-software, naturally it would not work in Linux...

[leastonh1]

Doh, Nemesis beat me to it [:D]

Linux is probably as easy, if not easier than Windows to install these days. The only thing you might need to mess with (depending on the distro and your requirements) is the hard drive partitioning. Most Linux distros also have a Live CD available too. Pop it in the CD drive, boot with it and you basically run the whole OS off the CD. It's a great way to test a distro against your hardware and to see if you can live with it. You also get the option to install it if you choose to.

As for software compatibility. Hmmm, depends on what you're running. There are Linux alternatives/versions of most Windows software. The biggest problem is games. Most Windows games aren't ported over to Linux, so you do have to jump through a few hoops to play them.

The easiest way to begin with is to run a Live CD (try http://www.distrowatch.com/ for options) [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

thx - will do.

One of the reasons I've stayed with Windows is the old "better the devil you know"...the fact that I don't like to "jump through hoops" (I know you do with Windows, but once everything is up and running in the OS, most programs run flawlessly)..>I hate to buy something and not be able to run it without ducking and diving, bobbing and weaving.

Also, in terms of games, I will not be re-buying all my games just so they're compatible with another OS...sorry...but I don't have those funds to chuck around. It's all I can do to persuade my wife that my hobby is just that, apologise for it being expensive and walk away in a sulk, without having to explain to her that I needed this new OS and re-buying the games are a necessity.

I will certainly look at ubuntu...what a great idea, running an OS from the CD to see if it works!!

Thx Jim_H and Nemesis

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Also, in terms of games, I will not be re-buying all my games just so they're compatible with another OS...sorry...but I don't have those funds to chuck around.

You don't have to apologize . That said, I did (and do) spend quite a bit of time playing games on Windows. And then I moved to Mac. What did I do? I installed Windows on the Mac, so I could boot in to Windows whenever I wanted to play a game, rest of the time I could just use OS X. Also, I occasionally buy games for the Mac as well (Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday for example), although it's easier to buy them for Windows, due to better availability. But if I can choose between Win-version and Mac-version, I choose the Mac-version.

My in-laws are actually moving to a Mac this christmas (my wife somehow talked them in to it), and I can tell you how it went in their case (total Mac-newbies) early next year.

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
One of the reasons I've stayed with Windows is the old "better the devil you know"...the fact that I don't like to "jump through hoops" (I know you do with Windows, but once everything is up and running in the OS, most programs run flawlessly)..>I hate to buy something and not be able to run it without ducking and diving, bobbing and weaving.

Which is precisely why I and most other people probably stay with Windows too. It's familiar. Crap, but familiar. If you are used to Windows, then Linux will be quite a learning curve. Almost everything is different, down to the directory structure.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Also, in terms of games, I will not be re-buying all my games just so they're compatible with another OS...sorry...but I don't have those funds to chuck around. It's all I can do to persuade my wife that my hobby is just that, apologise for it being expensive and walk away in a sulk, without having to explain to her that I needed this new OS and re-buying the games are a necessity.

I'm the same. It's a constant battle with the boss to justify why my "hobby" costs so much. I can't and won't ditch Windows for quite a while yet because there are things I can't do without, games being the biggest. So, I dual boot Linux and XP and just buy games for XP as I've always done. The games I run on Linux are either completely free or come with the Windows version anyway. Linux costs me a blank CD and some time.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85
The last straw was those bs Hi, I'm a Mac commercials. I just wanna take that Mac guy and wrap his ass in 10 rolls of duct tape, beat him with a sock full of pool balls and leave him locked in the trunk of an abandoned car in a junk yard.

We can certainly agree on that the Apple commercials do nothing good for how many people see Mac Users. While I found them funny at the beginning they now should move to something different now, it is getting boring.

If you hate the "I'm a Mac" comms, then check out the the "iPpod touch guided tour". I had to throw up, almost ....

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/guidedtour/

then compare it to the iPhone guided tour. I guess it is the same guy just with a mask on ....


I would not consider myself an Apple fanboy, I just switched over step by step since 2 years. I love the fact that I can run Mac OS and Windows on the very same machine, both natively without any emulations needed.

A main reason to switch was that I got tired of getting the OS in the way of my daily workflow. I would not say that Mac Os is superior too Windows, but it certainly needs less administrating and maintenance, at least for me. This is certainly due to Apple having good control over the hardware it builts is machines on.

Yes I love my iPod too. Not that it is the best solution for portable media it certainly is on of the best looking (except for the new "washing machine" iPod nano, yuck) and most easy to use.

Apple has it own share of flaws compared to Windows, anybody saying something other is simply ignoring this and preaching the "It just works" marketing blurb. But all in all I must say I never had so few crashes and reboots compared to the 15 years of using a Windows box.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Nemesis

ORIGINAL: ORANGELinux may have less problems but it supports less hardware, software and users.

Um, hardware-support in Linux mops the floor with Windows and OS X combined. If you plug some device in to a Linux-box, there's a good chance that it just works. Windows? Windows will probably prompt you for drivers.

LOL! You made a funny! [:D]

More hardware works with Windows than works with Linux. This is because hardware vendors write drivers for Windows more often than they do for Linux.

Thanks for the laugh! I wonder how many hardware devices come to market just for linux users?

[ORANGE]

I guess I am favored toward MS...it is probably due to the fact that they are the targeted enemy for no other reason than they are big. Windows works. I have used Linux and seen but no used MACs. Linux is intriguing to me for devices not for an OS per se.

The I am a MAC commercials were a hoot at first, dare I say brilliant, but now they are irritating because they are not as truthful.

From what I have read the new Apple OS has a lot of problems as well. The tech geek community is starting to turn on Apple for some reason too. I guess to be cool you cannot be part of the mainstream. I am not even sure if the LUG I used to attend is around anymore.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Nemesis

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Also, in terms of games, I will not be re-buying all my games just so they're compatible with another OS...sorry...but I don't have those funds to chuck around.

You don't have to apologize . That said, I did (and do) spend quite a bit of time playing games on Windows. And then I moved to Mac. What did I do? I installed Windows on the Mac, so I could boot in to Windows whenever I wanted to play a game, rest of the time I could just use OS X. Also, I occasionally buy games for the Mac as well (Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday for example), although it's easier to buy them for Windows, due to better availability. But if I can choose between Win-version and Mac-version, I choose the Mac-version.

My in-laws are actually moving to a Mac this christmas (my wife somehow talked them in to it), and I can tell you how it went in their case (total Mac-newbies) early next year.

Why do you not play the games on Linux? [:D]

[Knuckles_85]

Good luck gaming with Linux. I can't speak for Matrix all the different flavors Linux is a development nightmare. Microsoft was revolutionary when it came out with Direct X. Without the standardization of dealing with those Graphical API's we would be in the dark ages of gaming. Linux does have anything like that that's why you see so few Linux based games. As for Macs, I know with my PC I can go to any store I want to and say give me that mouse and that keyboard and it will work no matter if I'm using Windows 3.1 or Windows Vista. Mac alienated a lot of people early on and it came back to bite them in the ass.

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I guess I am favored toward MS...it is probably due to the fact that they are the targeted enemy for no other reason than they are big. Windows works. I have used Linux and seen but no used MACs. Linux is intriguing to me for devices not for an OS per se.

MS aren't targeted because they're big. They are targeted because they produce crap products. The facts speak for themselves. Linux is far from perfect and does have some really big problems too, but at least the Linux devs are listening to the customer and trying to produce something useful. MS just produce what they think will sell the most, as it's all about profit. That's great for their business, but not much good for the end user.

Windows does not work. Here's one very good site, of many: http://www.windows-sucks.com/

Regards,
Jim

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85
As for Macs, I know with my PC I can go to any store I want to and say give me that mouse and that keyboard and it will work no matter if I'm using Windows 3.1 or Windows Vista.

Apart from the fact that almost any standard peripherals and in out devices work with Macs (out of the box, be it Intel Macs or not) too, the above statement is simply BS [;)]. There is plenty of scanners, faxes, printers, gaming devices etc. etc. out there that do not work with Vista yet (missing drivers) properly or do not work with Window version smaller then XP. MS dropped Win 98 long ago, so did hardware manufacturers.

[leastonh1]

Marc's right.

I have an old, but hardly used flatbed scanner. The drivers for it were for Win 95/98 and simply don't even install under XP. So, do I buy a new scanner, just because the hardware is no longer officially supported? MS would like me to! Yet, I plugged this scanner into my Linux box and it worked without any fuss. I did eventually find "some" drivers for a different scanner that work with this one under XP, but it took me a long time to get them working. I have a box full of kit in my loft that's still in working order, but not with the latest MS versions of Windows. I would rather not buy something new just because MS drop support for it and force me into that position. Unfortunately, that's how their marketing and business models work. No thank you.

[Knuckles_85]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85
As for Macs, I know with my PC I can go to any store I want to and say give me that mouse and that keyboard and it will work no matter if I'm using Windows 3.1 or Windows Vista.

Apart from the fact that almost any standard peripherals and in out devices work with Macs (out of the box, be it Intel Macs or not) too, the above statement is simply BS [;)]. There is plenty of scanners, faxes, printers, gaming devices etc. etc. out there that do not work with Vista yet (missing drivers) properly or do not work with Window version smaller then XP. MS dropped Win 98 long ago, so did hardware manufacturers.

So you're telling me you can go out and buy a mouse and a keyboard and it will work with any Mac? Are you sure about that cause I've ran into difficulty in this area. I have a Graphic Design artist right now that's pissed cause her trackball mouse don't work since we upgraded her to 10.3

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

Marc's right.

I have an old, but hardly used flatbed scanner. The drivers for it were for Win 95/98 and simply don't even install under XP. So, do I buy a new scanner, just because the hardware is no longer officially supported? MS would like me to! Yet, I plugged this scanner into my Linux box and it worked without any fuss. I did eventually find "some" drivers for a different scanner that work with this one under XP, but it took me a long time to get them working. I have a box full of kit in my loft that's still in working order, but not with the latest MS versions of Windows. I would rather not buy something new just because MS drop support for it and force me into that position. Unfortunately, that's how their marketing and business models work. No thank you.

You sound confused. The scanner manufacturer should write the drivers not MS.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I guess I am favored toward MS...it is probably due to the fact that they are the targeted enemy for no other reason than they are big. Windows works. I have used Linux and seen but no used MACs. Linux is intriguing to me for devices not for an OS per se.

MS aren't targeted because they're big. They are targeted because they produce crap products. The facts speak for themselves. Linux is far from perfect and does have some really big problems too, but at least the Linux devs are listening to the customer and trying to produce something useful. MS just produce what they think will sell the most, as it's all about profit. That's great for their business, but not much good for the end user.

Windows does not work. Here's one very good site, of many: http://www.windows-sucks.com/

Regards,
Jim

MS is certainly targeted because they are big. Yes they are trying to make a profit but so are Linux DEV's to one extent or other. I think Linus himself draws a nice salary.

To say Windows is not useful is less than fair. IT is certainly useful. You use it yourself!

Unix like OS’s and Apple had a huge lead on MS and are now small parts of the market. One because of greed the other because most users found it hard to use for what they wanted to do.

And I am not going to bite. You found a hate site for MS on the Internet. Big deal. The Internet would probably not be as big as it is now if it was not for Microsoft who gave the home user an affordable solution. Apple wanted to keep everything proprietary. Sell mice for $30 to $45 each. Sell their systems for $5,000. They priced it out of the user market BECAUSE OF GREED and now they are behind. I do not feel sorry for them.

Again if Windows does not work then not only why would you use it but HOW can you use it?

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
MS is certainly targeted because they are big. Yes they are trying to make a profit but so are Linux DEV's to one extent or other. I think Linus himself draws a nice salary.

Linus is the exception, not the rule. There are many Linux devs out there who do it for no profit at all. They have regular jobs and develop their own distro as a hobby. PCLinuxOS is a good example. Tex makes no money from it and it's one of the most popular distros available.

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
To say Windows is not useful is less than fair. IT is certainly useful. You use it yourself!

I didn't say Windows isn't useful! I said MS aren't making the effort to produce something useful for their customers compared to Linux devs. MS produce for themselves first and customers second. They are 100% profit driven and there are many instances where they have been hammered in the press and in court for disregarding customers wishes. Being profit driven is fine, until you get to the situation where you have either battered or bought the opposition in the marketplace into submission and you are the monopoly. That's the problem.

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
Unix like OS’s and Apple had a huge lead on MS and are now small parts of the market. One because of greed the other because most users found it hard to use for what they wanted to do.

I agree. Linux is hard to use, but so is Windows. Come at this from a complete novice perspective. You've never touched a PC in your life. Someone gives you Linux and Windows to play with. Neither will be any harder than the other because you are working from a clean slate. You have nothing with which to compare. They are just different, that's all.

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
And I am not going to bite. You found a hate site for MS on the Internet. Big deal. The Internet would probably not be as big as it is now if it was not for Microsoft who gave the home user an affordable solution. Apple wanted to keep everything proprietary. Sell mice for $30 to $45 each. Sell their systems for $5,000. They priced it out of the user market BECAUSE OF GREED and now they are behind. I do not feel sorry for them.

I know little of Apple, so won't comment. I didn't ask you to bite, I gave an example of a site with constructive and valid criticism of MS products. It's not a hate site at all. Did you actually read any of the articles? Yes, they may very well hate MS, but their articles are well written, lucid and have some quite astonishing information in them. Especially the one about hidden folders in Windows. It's also ironic, based on what you wrote, that most of the Internet runs on Unix/Linux servers [;)]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
Again if Windows does not work then not only why would you use it but HOW can you use it?

Semantics. I doubt anyone else took that comment as a literal statement.

NM

Regards,
Jim

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Knuckles_85
As for Macs, I know with my PC I can go to any store I want to and say give me that mouse and that keyboard and it will work no matter if I'm using Windows 3.1 or Windows Vista.

Apart from the fact that almost any standard peripherals and in out devices work with Macs (out of the box, be it Intel Macs or not) too, the above statement is simply BS [;)]. There is plenty of scanners, faxes, printers, gaming devices etc. etc. out there that do not work with Vista yet (missing drivers) properly or do not work with Window version smaller then XP. MS dropped Win 98 long ago, so did hardware manufacturers.

So you're telling me you can go out and buy a mouse and a keyboard and it will work with any Mac? Are you sure about that cause I've ran into difficulty in this area. I have a Graphic Design artist right now that's pissed cause her trackball mouse don't work since we upgraded her to 10.3

Well, I have a Windows compatible mouse that does not even work under Windows 98 anymore. It all depends on the hardware developers support. 10.3 was a leap as was 10.4 and now is 10.5 evenmore. It is the same as with Windows. With new SPs or OS updates stuff stops to work as things change, and the hardware or software devs have to work on it. If they do not do you re out of luck, hardly a Mac vs. Windows thing.

You sounded like you can not attach "Windows" peripherals to a Mac, which is not true.

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
You sound confused. The scanner manufacturer should write the drivers not MS.

No, not confused at all!

The scanner worked without the need for the manufacturers drivers under 95/98. It won't work with any inbuilt driver or the manufacturers drivers under XP. Hence the need to either replace the scanner or find a cheat.