Yo, Windows users, I urge you to give Ubuntu Linux a try.

It is so nice to work with Linux again, Ubuntu makes even proprietary drivers a leap in ease-of-use (especially 3D-enabled video drivers), and all my expensive Adobe apps work - slick too. :D

On my system, Ubuntu uses 400MB of RAM as indicated by its task manager. (Vista used 1.8GB) --- these values include real-time caching.

And having just looked at XP's task manager, only 182MB is in use. :wow: I allocate a whole 4GB just for Photoshop, but I've never used more than 2GB on extensive images anyway...

Maybe I'll set up three XP VMs (w/licenses), remove the unneeded services, and dedicate them for fractal imagery, Photoshop, et al... or just share the one and add the number of virtual CPUs to 2... even with only 1 allocated it flies. :wow:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=itunes+wine&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Looks like v7 and v8 work fine under WINE. (I preferred using Virtualbox and setting up a virtual Windows OS using my retail XP license. Linux+Virtualbox's footprint is much, MUCH better than Vista or Win7...)

Full DirectX 9 games may not work, of course, but if you use your computer more than just games... (and the games found under Linux are rather more interesting than the stock first person shoot'em'ups these days anyway)

I plan to build a computer to use as my primary entertainment device. I plan to get a motherboard / video card combo with an HDMI hookup and run it through my 42" Vizio. If Ubuntu Linux can use the programs I need to use to make this happen then I'll switch over no problems. The reason I want to use iTunes is not to download music from but mainly for ripping music from my CDs / organization / playback. As long as I can do that I'm fine.

called Songbird.

Give it a shot if you switch to Linux.

http://www.getsongbird.com/

As long as I can play DVDs, listen to MP3s, and use Firefox then I'm good.

others may know.

My favorite is Debian, Ubuntu's nerdier sister. My desktop is custom, but generic almost, mostly clearlooks with the blue "tentacles" background.

Lately I haven't had anything not work. I was pleasantly surprised when I plugged in a hand-me-down iPod my kids gave me. I had no problems downloading my music to it.

Yeah, Windows is suckie-poo.

Good to know about the iPod, in case I get one someday. (I won't go back to iTunes, but I do like the ipod...)

And given how XP is merely a souped up Win 2000 Pro, I've looked into using my old Win 2000 license that literally sits around and does nothing. Of course, there's no way to fool XP-centric apps into thinking the 2k box is XP... but selective disabling of services; RAM requirements and disk footprint are still tolerable.

I'll look into Debian one day. Even then, what the folks at Ubuntu did to make everything seamless really puts even SUSE to shame. I never thought that would be possible; SUSE used to be my favorite.

I understand Ubuntu is excellent. I may try setting it up on one of my old laptops.

With Mac, I can still alternate boot into Windows, as I still need it once or twice a month.

So many distros are developed to where they're easy to install and tweak now.

The only problem I have is that I got this one and only copy of FlashMX and I intend to use it forever. It doesn't work in Linux, not even with WINE, as far as I can tell.

The other, peripheral, cross-platform annoyances apply. I can't watch my Netflix streams without IE. Don't get me started on these damned video providers and their insistence on serving up IE-only players.

Other than that, I would run Linux 24/7. Lately, I'm fond of small footprint distros like Puppy and SLAX.

FYI, Flash MX will work under Crossover Office.

Netflix is one of the things I use my virtual machine for, i.e. I installed Virtualbox and then XP as a virtual machine. You can then get the online content that requires Windows for DRM purposes.

:)

I know WINE won't work with CS4 (likely will in the future), but until then virtualization combined with whittling down emulated XP's services does work rather nicely.

I'll check it out. :)

:D

I may give Ubuntu a shot through VMWare.

bought patents without doing any of the effort, but it's all good)

Linux has several GUI choices; Ubuntu uses GNOME by default. It's Mac-like but offers more flexibility.

... and your definitions. Linux/BSD desktops allow for more customization more easily than Windows or OSX so you tend to end up with desktops that look a lot like both or neither or some combo.

The aesthetics can be modified in so many ways that the end-user can make it look pretty much however they want within the limitations of the desktop environment itself. Q up there is using Gnome, which is based on the GTK+ toolkit. That screenshot shows a docking app that was made to mimic visually an OSX system, and because of the way Gnome defaults, it's fairly trivial to skin it so that it looks almost exactly like default OSX. Under the hood, though, they're different.

The conventional wisdom is that of the two main desktop environments for the X11 Windows system, Gnome is made to compete/compare most directly with Apple and its operating system while KDE (based on the Qt toolkit) is made to compete/compare with Windows. But, again, a lot of that is in the visual aesthetics as what runs the windowing system is a different animal than either.

I've skinned a Gnome based system to look almost exactly like a Windows system, and I've skinned a KDE system to look a lot like OSX. In my day-to-day usage, I pick and choose elements I like that tend to make my desktop look somewhat like a combination of OSX and Windows with some wierdness on top of all that that doesn't seem to come from anywhere to the casual observer but which is unique to KDE itself. (I use KDE, FWIW.)

Anyway, the windowing desktop environment In the Beginning was one thing, and everyone has "ripped off" that basic idea.

Linux what ever flavor you like is nice but so is Windows!

:rofl:

After some of the hassle with Vista of late, never mind corporate actions by Microsoft that are grossly unprofessional (product support; why a customer would have to wait over a year to pay for a new version to get a fix to what is technically a simply bug others were able to reproduce), it was time to leave them. That is not nice.

Come back in about 15 years. Which will make the oldest distro I have 30 years old!

Linux v. Windows is like arguing which is better a ballpeen hammer or a claw hammer!

Both are tools. It is how you use the tools that count.

Between then I was a NT/2000/XP fanboy.

:D

running at work.

It just - well - works!

My current distro of choice is Ubuntu.

The main household machine does dual-boot but I sneakily made the boot menu so that Ubuntu starts by default, you have to actually go and select XP if you want Windows (sorry no Vista on the machine). More often than not, everyone ends up on Ubuntu, purely because they'll press ENTER to get something going rather than specifically selecting Windows.

Mark.

Make a Linux distro the default and then give it a 1 second timeout counter. :)

You have 3 seconds to select XP on our setup.

If I really wanted XP to "go away" I'd spend the time virtual-machining XP within Linux and not having XP as a boot option.

Mark.

I don't know what you keep f'ing up when you're installing it, but mine is running 2 browsers, pshop, word, utorrent, winamp, and playing a movie and is still under 1GB

so it's by default throwing everything into RAM.

Vista is a RAM hog, pure and simple.

Also, it's hard to fuck up Microsoft products when they do it well enough for us all by themselves. I've enough tech certifications and other qualifiers, blah blah blah, so please don't mind if I ask how you think I'm fucking up the system to make it use 1.8GB by default. You claim to know so much, or enough to accuse me of fucking it up when installing it, so kindly zip it with that baseless accusation I'm some form of moron too, okay???


(Edited: Subject line)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011523

I'm more inclined to believe that article...


http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
Amusing blog discussing Vista (it's old, but until you pony up details that back up your confounded nature over why my machine used 1.8GB by default (you did know all along it has 8GB of RAM total, yes?) and not accusing me of being a dunderhead...)

http://www.4neurons.com/other/Vista/XPvsVista.html

True; the test machine doesn't have 8GB of RAM. But I think it speaks for itself. Vista is bloat.

Now, I've provided you with a lot of links and benchmarks and some fun innuendo about Vista being bloaty.

Do you still wish to think I somehow fucked up a DEFAULT INSTALLATION of Vista (and there are no RAM configuration parameters either)? I'm waiting. But you made the accusation. You pony up the proof or I'll make some accusations of my own against you. :)

Accuse away!

I just played with Vista for the first time this weekend when my wife got a new laptop.

After I took the time to remove all of the McAffee and Acer etc... preloaded GARBAGE it handled pretty well for a laptop. The interface is a little different but I wasn't anywhere near as annoyed with it as I had expected to be.

I wonder if all those bitching about Vista bothered to remove the tons and tons of cycle swallowing, performance reducing, productivity depleting crap that manufacturers like Dell and Acer (not Microsoft) etc... Load onto these store bought systems?

When Linux, or Mac for that matter can provide a simple, seamless environment for ALL the programs that I actually use I will be glad to give them a go but until then, no thanks. I have more work for my computer than either of us can handle and I don't have time to worry about emulators or virtual machines. (Why in gods name would I want to set up a virtual OS, that needs a rather expensive NON virtual license in linux or mac just so I can run the proggies that I actually use? Where on Earth is the benefit?)

OTH I can see the geek appeal of toying with a new and robust gizmo. That part I do get I just don't have the time...

Anyhow enjoy the Ubuntu DejaToad.

... but the tone here suggests that's a rhetorical question and that you might not be interested in a real answer?

As far as those who bitch about Vista, there's a lot to be said there too, but I'll leave it at this. The first people who did the "bitching" were professionals using clean installs of Vista for the specific purpose of judging its performance and quality. For myself, I build my own machines and so don't have to deal with that after-market crap that corporate system builders kindly give a person, meaning the times I've used Vista I've been using a clean install that didn't even have registry entries for all that junk.

It's got problems in more areas than simply performance.

I've been running my crap free "xp box" since '03 and I've had no problems that made me want another OS.

are why I switched. I don't think it's unreasonable for a company that sells a product, one that can be recreated on many machines, one that is important to MY business. to make a reasonably fast fix. Especially as it's minor. Of course, it doesn't affect IE (because IE hides illegally generated characters), so they have no qualms for making the fix available until the next product release, engendering me to shell out another $300.

I already spent that $300. On Adobe Lightroom. It simply WORKS. Microsoft can't even buy other companies' products without introducing bugs and demand the customer pays for it too, while waiting... and waiting... and waiting... and not being able to use the existing software to its full potential.

Microsoft is a joke. I'm not rich enough for Apple, I have other existing resources, so I am using those first.

So much for the talk of voting with our paychecks. Like I've always says, boycotts are a joke.

I was just thinking I need to bookmark this thread and trot it out the next time someone goes off on an anti-corporate rant that devolves into claiming the problem is anyone other than ourselves.

Boycotts are all well and good ... as long as no one is inconvenienced in the process.

There are many legitimate reasons for a person to stay with Windows or OSX or whatever they want to use. I'm not a crusader fanboy who seeks to convert everyone to my way of thinking about computers. However, some of the reasons people come up with for sticking with Windows are really rather silly, and the disdain some of these people heap on those who aren't afraid of change, trying something new, etc. is more than a little insulting. People claim Linux people are obnoxious, and to be frank, some of them are. But some of what's perceived as obnoxiousness is simply frustration at being cast aside as "one of those people" when all you're really trying to do is help. Got no budget, sick of being screwed over by a corporation with a very poor customer service record, tried of daily cleaning spyware? Give Linux a try.

Sheesh ... what's so bad about that.

I converted to Linux initially because I was fed up with Microsoft, and to be honest I had more than a few problems unlearning the things Microsoft had taught me. (That, btw, is what the learning curve is ... unlearning behaviors that are required to use Windows. As a formerly long-time Windows user, I have the same kinds of problems using an Apple.) I did do that unlearning and I have re-learned a lot of things and learned new things. Linux is Not Windows. I'm really rather sick of the comparisons that are built on the premise that they are or that one should mimic the other in every way. Will all my Windows software run on Linux? Probably not. It's not Windows. But give me half a minute, and I can assure you that the for the vast majority of what most people use computers for, I can find you a Linux equivalent that may well even be superior.

My Linux machines do more than my Windows box ever thought about doing, and they do it more easily with orders of magnitude less expense. My Windows machine does some things my Linux box won't do very well, e.g. FPS games based on DirectX. And so and so and so and so ... the game isn't zero-sum.

My first computer was a Dell 528mb ram running Win 98SE. It was one problem after another. Then I built my own machine w/3gb ram running XP and have not had any serious problems. But then, a minor problem for me (down for a full day until I find a solution) would likely be a serious problem for you. A casual, somewhat computer savvy, user like myself might have several day long problems over a half dozen years and mostly forget about them, while someone, savvy or not, using their computers for business would be left seething and looking for a better alternative. I can see that.

My $1000 beater is great for hauling me back and forth to work but a cab driver is going to need something far more robust and reliable.

My demands are relatively simple and easily met. Your case is much different and I can understand the frustration.

on edit: This, and other posts have made me curious about Ubuntu. I am going to check it out and if the learning curve isn't too steep I might give it a try.

I've been running this XP system (P4 2GHz, 2MB) since 2002 with no problems. Of course, other than the OS, I'm Open Source everywhere else (Firefox, Open Office, VLC, etc.) so I will probably give Ubuntu a try someday.

and it still eats plenty of resources for breakfast.

As for licensing, it was a retail XP license. And you're right, some would have to dig and find a license or buy it somewhere.

The benefit is added security, in many cases speed, and lower footprint. Plus, the more people using non-Windows OSes will eventually have enough clout to get their own native versions available. Photoshop exists for the Mac; in theory a port to Linux isn't that far off.

That and I'm a geek. :7

I completely get paring your OS's footprint down to the bare minimum. I'm with you there but if it can't keep up with AutoDesk in a hassle free way I just don't have the time... You understand. I wasn't dissing Linux.

As far as security goes though, you've said yourself, on a number of occasions that no OS is really immune some are just bigger targets than others (for now).


:P

And I'm sure I'll be pro-Microsoft again in a couple of years anyway.

That would be one of those legitimate reasons for sticking with Windows.

It's one of the few things for which I haven't found a decent Linux equivalent.

AutoDesk is still the best for computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) :D

I don't use CADD personally, but some people I've done work for do, and one of them desperately wants to convert away from Windows. I looked all over for a Linux equivalent. There are some rough attempts out there, but for someone who uses this daily, they aren't adequate at all.

And, it's really odd since some of the first CADD systems were done for Unix machines, but development there seemed to stop cold.

This won't change at any rate until some group with some money tackles it. I can conceivable see a scenario similar to the one that created Blender for 3D modeling, but then again probably not because Blender was at its base a response to a lack of appropriate tools. With AutoDesk out there, there's really no motivation.

A co-worker wanted me to "look" at his computer. Won't boot up. I tried a start-up disk, wouldn't boot up. I tried to disconnect his drive and hook it as a secondary to my own Vista computer--his hard drive, even as a secondary drive, prevented my own from booting. I've tried every darned trick I could think of, and just about every one I could find through Google, but I can hear the amused chuckle of Bill Gates over my shoulder every time the computer hits the blue screen and I hurl my most creative stream of profanity at it.

From Googling, I've read people say Vista does this sometimes with automatic updates. Doesn't even need a virus or conflict. It's like a step backwards, to the old days of Interrupt conflicts and all that.

Ubuuntu drives me insane, too. Takes too long to figure out the simplest downloads and installs, and to figure out why basic sites don't always work. On the other hand, it's never crashed on me, and never refused to boot up, and it's got some really cool games, too. It's not enough to make dump Windows and try to use it full time, but there's an opening there for someone other than Windows to squeeze through, with all the pain that Vista, not to mention Microsoft's fascist licensing policies, is causing.

Sorry, I had to tell someone how frustrated I am, and my kids don't seem to care.

Reynolds and Reynolds, GM and other proprietary software, along with about 15 different printers (including impact printers)?

And will it take longer than an hour to install from an image? OH, and drivers for 5 and 6 year old rack mounts, operating milling machines and brake lathes, are they compatible?

Supposedly an even easier Ubuntu variant, with more drivers, codecs, etc for media.

If it can auto-discover a wireless card, I might need to try it. Wireless cards seem to give me a bad time in Linux.

:hi:

I dual-boot two computers between Ubuntu and and Windows depending on what I need to do. Although I hate the KDE release (GNOME is so much better). I run an apache webserver, a filesharing server, and a host of other goodies.

To each his own. Windows XP does everything I need it to, and I'm an IT guy. I've played around with Linux enough to get it up and running (I do have a VM of it but I don't do much with it) but then felt like "Uh, OK, now what can I do with it that I can't on XP?" I don't do programming or kernel hacking and so open source doesn't mean much to me. I feel like I should probably experiment with Linux solely because it seems to be gaining traction in the data center (and so perhaps knowing more about it would be beneficial to my career), but personally I have little to no interest in it (and I don't mind working from the command prompt; I prefer it actually).

Once you have XP customized and configured my way, it runs fine. I have absolutely no complaints with it on the five computers I work with which run XP. Vista sucks, I'll admit, for 2 reasons: it's a resource hog, and the menus were rearranged for no apparent purpose. And so I hope Microsoft learns from the mistake and makes Windows 7 the next true successor to XP.

I don't mind Linux itself but I do mind the snotty attitudes of many of the Linux fans I've known (not here of course but elsewhere) who have sneered at me for being stupid to use Windows, who have told me I must kiss Bill Gates's ass, I'm not really an IT guy if I don't worship Linux, why must I be a sheep for liking something they don't, etc. I suppose that makes it difficult for me to muster much enthusiasm for their operating system of choice. These folks simply love to claim Windows crashes constantly, is slow, always gets hacked, always gets viruses, etc. Not true. The only times I have ever seen a Windows machine infected with a virus was when someone deliberately installed some crud they downloaded from the internet (pirated software). If you set up AV software and make sure it updates, you're fine. I simply don't spent any amounts of time worrying about viruses (or any of the so-called vulnerabilities like the painfully absurd Adobe .pdf vulnerability nonsense which is just a cry for attention from Adobe as far as I'm concerned). The Linux types I've seen have basically called me a liar for saying that; according to them Windows admins spend 95% of their time fighting viruses. Talk about FUD. And none of the Windows machines I've owned or worked with have ever been hacked. A simple firewall, which should be in place on ANY system regardless of the OS, works wonders.

Not only are the claims of Windows inferiority grossly (and shrilly) overexaggerated by some, I simply haven't found Linux to be the awe-inspiring savior of man that it's been hyped as. I've worked with Linux machines in my employment and they do crash. They do have hardware problems (in fact my current employer has a mix of Linux and Windows machines - the Linux ones have constant display and mouse problems. Constant). They do need to be patched for vulnerabilities. And so forth.

To me the OS is just a preference; none "suck" and none "rule." Whatever meets your needs. Nothing against Linux, but it is chocolate and I prefer vanilla.

forget it! :P

There are things about Photoshop and Corel Painter IX I'm still learning. I don't have the time nor the patience to learn a whole new operating system as well as try and get all the right drivers for the programs I do use.

Personally, it makes no difference to me what OS, what computer brand, what type of computer and/or software you do use. Just show me what you've produced with it! :D