Microsoft XP.... I think its time to start looking towards Linux...

[Spook]

With Microsofts new brainstorm, Windows XP, coming just down the road, it might be time to switch to Linux...

Microsoft plans on implimenting two practices that might drive us, the hardware enthusists, nuts...

First... One system, One OS... If you want to change your hardware, you need to call them and reinitiate your registration code... Now, I don't know about you guys but in the process of troubleshooting, I'll swap everthing around, one at a time trying to find the problem... This arrangement just won't work with XP...

Second... Microsoft is considering a new business model of 'renting' their OS... You would be charged monthly for use of their OS...

Can XP Invigorate Microsoft?



<< No prices have as yet been announced, but the company usually charges about $100 for consumer upgrades and roughly $200 for business upgrades of its newest operating systems. In a new and as yet unconfirmed twist, Microsoft is also expected to offer customers the option of buying the new OS on a subscription basis, which would create recurring revenues for the firm. >>



Now, it may be available to buy the OS straight out... But don't you think that this is just the beginning of a business model to charge for 'Subscriptions'???


Now, to counter all of this.... Linux is Free, we all know that... One of the problems is hardware compatability, which is getting better and better each day... But, no subscriptions, no monthly subscription fees...

I know many of us are gamers... and this is probably the biggest point of contention for many of us... Gaming compatability, I know it is for me... I want games... But if a movement can be created by gamers towards Linux, we could create a need for games to be ported, or better yet created for Linux...

I think Microsoft has gotten too big for its britches, and going to a rediculous business model... We need a way, legitimately, to overcome the giant. I know we may be able to crack everything they through into XP, but XP is starting a very bad precedent, and will make things that much worse in the future for us.

 

[Radboy]

I think it's a good idea to become familiar w/ Linux .. no matter *what* MS does. I heard this is the best book for getting started w/ Linux .. and that Linuxnewbie was the best place to get your q's answered.

 

[PCResources]

Linux is the way of the future, i have stated this many times...

And better HW support and games created for Linux are just around the corner...

And another thing, it is FREE... And there are lots of server, office and other applications for it that would cost you a lot of money too that are totally free for Linux...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[Gunbuster]

Outcome 1: People go to *nix

Outcome 2: IRC and astalavista get a little more traffic than normal

 

[JellyBaby]

I don't use linux but from all I've read it's far too primitive in the UI dept. and too unwieldly for most users. Plus so many are simply tied to Windows for various reasons (usually business).

MS's move to subscription pricing basically says to me, &quot;we've given up on innovating. please just pay us anyway.&quot;. Either they can't create anything new or there just isn't anything new to create in office apps and oses. Either way I don't plan on subscribing to my OS and paying yearly.

Product activation is understandable given commercial piracy but it will annoy many, many people and whatever $$ M$ makes in the short term they'll lose in market share.

The future does not look good for MS. I've even heard they're planning to move .net to linux at some point.

 

[PCResources]

<< I don't use linux but from all I've read it's far too primitive in the UI dept. and too unwieldly for most users >>



Actually the UI dept. is one area where Linux is far ahead compared to Win or Mac...

You want the GUI of Win, you got it, you want the GUI from Mac, you get that too, or anything else you might consider, including the win 3.1 GUI... And for most users, it will be quite easy to handle, the problem comes when you try out the advanced featueres of Linux, but those aren't available with Win so why would you use them then when you didn't need them before...

If you are a beginner, i would suggest Mandrake 7.2 or Corel Linux... If you already have some experience with Linux or Unix, then get Slackware...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[SACANDAGA]

I don't use linux but from all I've read it's far too primitive in the UI dept. and too unwieldly for most users.

Don't believe everything you read! Linux is fast stable and FREE! I am suprised how many people spread FUD about Linux without ever spending some time to check it out.

 

Forget about Windows XP. Remember that in 9 days the most important event of the last 2000 years will take place: The arrival of MacOS X.

Steve Jobs is a brilliant man. He will surely lead us from the darkness of Windows and the heathenish ways of Linux.

 

[Eug]

<< Don't believe everything you read! Linux is fast stable and FREE! I am suprised how many people spread FUD about Linux without ever spending some time to check it out. >>

I spent far too much time with Linux just getting the damn thing to work with my Promise Ultra 66. It seemed to me to be a geek OS aimed at computer geeks, and it ignores just about everyone else.

As soon as you have some ultra-new or non-standard hardware, Linux becomes a major pain, since nobody really officially supports it. And it's as if basically no Linux software programmer has ever heard of simple user-friendly design. Even when someone shows me a supposedly slick piece of Linux software, they pale in comparison with the professionalism that many Windows 2000 products ooze.

Sure, if you're a network administrator building a server box, go for Linux. However, I'd go Mac anyday over Linux, for the average person.

 

[nortexoid]

XP looks sweet, in my opinion - i hate these sh1tty looking GUIs...
i want total skinability....

anyway, i doubt the first point u made - as it would be more of a nuisance to MS than anything...

as for charging, if they do that - i assume u'd have to have a permanent internet connection so they could know whether or not ur'e using their OS in the first place...otherwise they'd never know if u installed it and ran it...

if this is the case, i won't use XP...big deal - win2k has its advantages over it for numerous reasons...

ti's not even intended to be win2k's sucessor - its aimed strictly at later generation home users...

 

[Eug]

Heheh, from the pictures I've seen, I can't stand the GUI of Windows XP. I think even the plain Windows 2000 look is better than the faked Aqua look. Mac OS X blows them all away, but we have yet to see how good the OS is in the real world.

 

[MGMorden]

Noretxvoid: XP is aimed to be 2000's sucessor. There's Personal (Me's sucessor) and Professional (2000's sucessor) slated to come out. I really think that a lot of people will start migrating to Linux (or maybe MacOs) if all this goes through. People don't like hassles, and that's what MS is becoming nowadays. I've already got my system running Linux on my 17gb drive and Win2k on my 45gb drive, and I'm planning on more or less killing Windoze sooner or later. There are a few things that Linux still doesn't do as well in as windows (though it's a lot better at other things), but if you look at the rate of improvement Linux is running circles around MS. And the UI is not at all harder than Windows, it's just different. If you have spend years learning the Windows UI of course you're going to think it's easy (when in all actually it's not, you just know it well). Spend an equal amount of time in Linux and it's just as easy.

 

[madthumbs]

*1- Why do we need another OS? The only real reason to upgrade from Win95 was for &quot;real&quot; USB support.

*2- The &quot;renting&quot; was optional to my understanding. This would save people money if they were to upgrade OS's every 2 years anyway! This is a plus not a minus!

*3- For another OS to become dominant it must support at least 95% of the currently used software and hardware (IMHO).

*4- Linux has to be better than Win9x for it to become an &quot;upgrade option&quot;. Better for gaming/ business/ home entertainment.

Personally I think there should be a class action lawsuit against M$ for not giving us free updates since Win95! Based on their own advertisement for Win2000 bashing their own Win95 in favor of Win2K solely based on stability! This is an ad'mission of guilt of a faulty product with no recourse but to buy another product from them!

 

[pm]

<< As soon as you have some ultra-new or non-standard hardware, Linux becomes a major pain, since nobody really officially supports it. >>


This is a self-fufilling statement. If you don't use Linux because new hardware doesn't have support, then manufacturers will never feel the need to support it because no one is using it.

I like Linux, I use it for programming and experimentation with low-level hardware (Win2k is a real pain in this respect). I spent a fair amount of time running Linux and I see the pros and cons. But still, when I'm not 'working' then I boot up Win2k. A lot of the apps that I like to play with are too hard to use, too hard to find, not ready for primetime, or simply unavailable under Linux.

XP hasn't been released yet so it's too early to tell how it's going to turn out. Maybe this whole registration idea will get tossed before it's released. And the subscription idea isn't even plan of record yet.

One thing has definitely been true in the past is that you have plenty of time to use your current OS before support for it completely falls apart. So WinME will still have some support, I would think, in 3+ years time. So it's not like this autumn you will have to upgrade. It's the year 2001 and if you still are running Win95 released 6 years ago, you can get support for most everything working.

 

[Leo V]

I've entered the process of switching to Linux several months ago. The MS flaws &amp; attitude are nothing new, it's just that Linux finally has all the essential sw/hw support I need. By now, I have a pizzabox-sized Linux firewall/router/server that works beautifully and is remotely controlled. I've messed with different Linux installations on my workstation, and very soon I'll have a &quot;golden&quot; installation which will become my primary workstation OS.

 

[Eug]

<< If you have spend years learning the Windows UI of course you're going to think it's easy (when in all actually it's not, you just know it well). Spend an equal amount of time in Linux and it's just as easy. >>

I agree that Windows 2000 isn't the most user friendly, but Linux is at best equal, and at worst, terrible. On the other hand, load up a G4 with Mac OS X and it's pretty intuitive, and it looks good at the same time too. Not that I have spent any real time with OS X (since it's not out yet), but that's the way an OS should be IMO.


<< This is a self-fufilling statement. If you don't use Linux because new hardware doesn't have support, then manufacturers will never feel the need to support it because no one is using it. >>

Yep, very true. However, I don't see it changing any time soon, maybe partially because it's free. It seems to me that nobody in the Linux world really gives a damn about usability. As long as the software does its job then it's OK. They don't care about ergonomics, and even if they did they don't have the money to pay someone to make it user friendly (because it's free). OK, I'm exaggerating, but even the supposedly easy Redhat Linux installation is a nightmare compared to the &quot;mainstream&quot; OSes. When I installed it, it looked like software coming out of the pre-DOS 6.22 days, and I was only successful in installing because the command line doesn't scare me, because I understand stuff like partitions, etc., and because I have a few Unix/Linux guru friends. Try giving this OS to an average person, and let's see how far s/he gets.

EDIT:



<< It's the year 2001 and if you still are running Win95 released 6 years ago, you can get support for most everything working. >>

Some of my hardware doesn't work under Windows 95, and I bought some of it in 1999. I've always gone by the rule that for average home user, upgrading about 1 to 1.5 years after release is best, but never after 3. (Of course, I always upgrade within the first month if I can. )

 

[SACANDAGA]

<< I spent far too much time with Linux just getting the damn thing to work with my Promise Ultra 66. It seemed to me to be a geek OS aimed at computer geeks, and it ignores just about everyone else. >>



Thanks for helping me to prove a point and not having one yourself.

 

[Eug]

<< Thanks for helping me to prove a point and not having one yourself. >>

Eh? I installed it, hated it, and ran it for a little while, hated it less but still was unimpressed with it for my needs. (I am not a computer guy by trade.) My point is that Linux may be great for some applications, but for the average home user it fails. It's interesting to note that even my Linux/Unix guru friends don't even bother running Linux at home (at least not exclusively). They all run Win 98 or Win 2000, simply because it supports everything they want to do with their computers at home, while Linux doesn't. (Some dual boot though but usually just run everything from Win 2000 because it's simpler not having to reboot all the time.)

P.S. I DO have two Linux-based &quot;machines&quot; running 24/7 in my home. One is a Linksys router, and the other is an MP3/WMA audio receiver. So I nothing against Linux per se in general. If the product suits my needs as a home user, I will buy it. So far Linux is still way behind in terms of a general OS for the home market.

 

[unionfredo]

I have three Operations Systems at home, SuSE 7.1, BeOS, and Windows 2000. I really think that BeOS blows both Linux and Windows out of the water as a home operating system. I also enjoy using SuSE and recommend it highly above any other linux distro if linux is your cup of tea.


alfredo

 

[Eug]

Yeah, I liked the ease of use of the BeOS GUI, and the install was super easy too. However again, I ended up erasing it too because I really didn't have any software for it. Interestingly, I think Jobs was considering buying out BeOS, before he finally went to the Unix-based Mac OS X.

 

[joinT]

Umm.
I still have my Win98 SE cd.
I have no plans on using XP, if it's at all like that. (Subscription ? maybe, but to re-install hardware - oh NO!)

I've finally figured out Windoze enough that it's not so bad anymore.

This just goes to show you it's useful to keep copies of your old OS's

 

[wyvrn]

Mac would work if they allowed more than one company to produce hardware. Right now, you have to be very loyal to want to buy a Mac, because they are much more expensive, a bit harder to customize, and the software selection is not quite as nice. Sure allowing other companies to make hardware might have some negative ramifications, like quality, in the beginning, but over time the lower quality manufacturers would be weeded out and standardization among the manufactures would form.

Apple already has a good OS, they just need to take the next step with hardware.

 

[PCResources]

Ok, so Mac OS gets some praise here... I do not like it, and it won't be as scalable as Linux is...

The truth is, all the windows cores are code monsters, with enough code to keep a whole staff busy for months for a minor update... The linux core is very small, small enough to be handled by one person alone regarding updates, Linus...

You can take the actual core, which you will always need, and around it you gather your favorite programs, there, you have your own personal OS, completely compatiable with every one elses personal linux os...

That is scalability, getting rid of all the trash and just keeping what you really need... How many different windows distributions are there and how many different Mac distributions, regardless of the os number?

Linux is coming, it will eat up every segment of the Windows market eventually, Windows is a joke as a server OS and it is too resource consuming as a personal OS....

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[Imaginer]

&quot;Apple already has a good OS&quot;

I have not used an Apple often or used one in awhile but if the OS X is as good as they say, then Apple should port it over to the PC and start competing with Microsoft in the software front.

But then again, they would be squished like a bug.

 

[PCResources]

<< even the supposedly easy Redhat Linux installation is a nightmare compared to the &quot;mainstream&quot; OSes >>



Try Mandrake 7.2, it is easier than all the other OS's, and you still get the goodies, you can still change the sizes of different partitions if you want to... If you do not want to, just go with &quot;recommended&quot; just like any other OS...

Again scalability is the key, there are dists even for newbies...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources