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

[Spook]

Im not saying Win2000 is bad either... It works fine, its what I'm using now... but if Microsoft is going to shove these limitations down our throats, I think we need to move on to another OS, but as a community, for support...

Its like anything else, as an individuals we don't have a voice... but as a community, we can get what we want done...

 

[JellyBaby]

As I see it Win XP with its yearly fees, overly restrictive hardware-tied anti-piracy "features" and spyware will not succeed. Drop these items and Win XP could very well be embraced by consumers and maybe even businesses, too. If XP is rock-stable, runs all my games, supports all my hardware and has decent security, I'm in.

And if XP doesn't really have all these anti-user "features" why hasn't MS explained that?

 

[Sharkmeat]

All I see is It,s free free free sounds like a welfare complex doing there thing,so quit talking bull crap and get on with the show,go to Bestbuy and get a free copy of Linix,yeah I heard you so download it,but the problem is the dumbs asses can't run Reg windows,how in hell will they be taught to use a dos base type program that you can place a icon into.I never in my life seen so many people own so much free or cheap crap as I have here.

 

[marcio]

<< And being able to choose different UI is a liability instead of an advantage. >>

<Sure, but you do not have to change your UI in Linux, you just get the option to do so... So what is your point? >

If you don't, then you don't have a response to the person who said that the linux UI is clearly inferior regarding usability. Then, what's your point?

Just reading all the arguments for linux, it only proves what most already know. It all boils down to the fact that you need to be a power user to benefit from linux. The average user is not a power user. The average user wants consistency and predictability. The average user is not going to be trying different shells to see which one he/she likes best. Most computer users use internet explorer and outlook express because that's what they have in the windows default installation. Most computer users don't even change their screen resolution. Saying that linux has the option to use a windows like interface or a mac like interface means nothing to the average user.

If it was as easy as you claim to be, then why is it that IT departments are not rolling out linux to their office computers?! Many IT personnel have the linux expertise already since their servers are running linux. After all, linux is free while Windows costs a lot. Someone is claiming that StarOffice is as good as MS Office and it's free, but you don't see IT departments rolling out StarOffice instead of MS Office even though most of them have linux experts to do so.

You can't make a claim that linux will surpass windows because you can tweak this and tweak that. If that's the best argument, windows will be in 90%+ of the households forever.

 

[AncientPC]

I am not a pro-Linux freak, I don't have it installed in any of my computers. In fact, I don't even have a copy of it in any shape or form.

However, from my experience with the OS on my friends' systems is:
- you can do just about anything you want with Linux
- you can mimic Windows, including GUI and every game (by running a pseudo-Win program but it kills the point of having Linux)
- Linux is very efficient
- Linux has a very high learning curve (well, that's just my IMO on how to install, set up, etc, not just using)

 

[DynaOne]

I've been hearing &quot;Linux&quot; for years now - just as I heard &quot;Unix&quot; for so many. I have &quot;never&quot; seen linux being used in a corporate environment desktop - the measure of true acceptability. Yea - web server, specialized situations, enthusiasts, ....
Windows 2000 is &quot;years&quot; ahead of W98, and as long as that trend continues we will have to live with Micosoft.
DynaOne

 

[PCResources]

Oyeve, and other people here...

Sure, if you want a stable system, go with Intel and Windows... I'm just kidding here, anyone can build a very stable AMD/Linux system probably more stable than any Intel/Windows system, and that ain't Intel's fault...

There must be some pretty stupid people out there, using other systems.. And we should all be very afraid, becuause i have personally configured military systems based on AMD and Linux tech...

Now, let's all calm down here, to claim that you actually had stability problems with StarOffice, well, you would be the first one i ever heard of... StarOffice is the most stable office system there is, this is no just what i think, i checked it out, StarOffice has 0,0012% failure rates among all users that ever reported any troubles with it....

It can do almost everything that MS office can do, and certainly has more features than most of us would ever use, to state anything else is just dumb...

Linux will eventually take over every segment of the market, we can discuss this later, when it has been done... Just remember, i was the source of that info...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[pm]

Linux is making serious headway in the server realm. It is inevitable (in my opinion) that it will start to make a strong impact in the workstation market (vs. Unix OS's like Solaris, AIX and HP-UX) - IBM and HP are already selling Linux-based workstations. After that I think it has a strong shot at the handheld market (vs. Palm and WinCE), and an excellent shot at dominating the thin-client/network computer market (vs. a whole bunch of OS's that no one has every heard of). If it can take over the mid to high-end of the market - which I think is inevitable, and it can take over the low-end of the market (which is a bigger &quot;if&quot; in my opinion), then it will start to squeeze into the desktop market.

Everyone cites the learning curve as the biggest obstacle, but this need not be the big problem that it is. The installation and hardware compatibility issues can be solved by selling pre-installed machines (Linux retail boxes) where the OS is preinstalled and preconfigured (and if there's a hardware problem with one device, then simply choose another one from another vendor that has better support). The GUI is not the OS - and people shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that having the Unix-like UI of Linux means that OS will always be hard to use. The complexity of the OS can be masked by making it really hard to get to the command prompt and by making a complete GUI solution. Eug's point about the lack of user-friendliness of Linux and the inability of the majority of Linux programmers to really care about the &quot;average user&quot; is well taken. But you can mask the complexity of the OS by reducing the ability of the user to change things. Eliminate the command prompt altogether in Linux and most of the problem is gone - fine the true geeks will complain, but the average user will have a stable system.

The OS and the user interface (UI) are not the same thing. We have gotten in the habit of thinking the OS and the UI are the same thing because Microsoft bundles them together and doesn't let anyone modify anything. I'm not one to normally use boldface in my posts, but this is an important point IMO. The GUI is not the OS - it's a shell on top of the OS. So if people say that Linux is a bad OS because the UI is too complex, my response is, we will change the UI and keep the same OS and the common man will be able to use the superior kernel of Linux.

I think Linux has a good shot at being the OS of the future simply by take over from above and below. But I don't think it will be ready for prime time in the desktop market in time to compete with WinXP. In fact my vision would be that it will start to make serious inroads into the desktop market in 2-4 years time.

 

[PG]

I am very impressed by Linux and it's stability, but I have to use Windows at work, so I don't know much about Linux. I am trying to learn though.

Anyway, my friend has a Linux server at home. It is his internet gateway/router for his home network. It's been up for 280+ days now. He can telnet into it from work and download files to work for me. He also hosts his brother's buisness web site on it. I know this is only a server application, but it really impresses me. I can't imagine any Windows box being up for 280+ days.

 

[PCResources]

Sure, marcio, let's all forget about linux and join in the MS hymn... Wiiiindooowws iiiis greeaaat....

If you think that the windows UI is the greatest, then why would i argue?? Just forget all that i said... You are obviously not going to change your mind, do not give the users any choice, just feed them what you think is right for them...

I agree with what PM said in his latests post...

Now i am getting out of this thread before it's getting ugly...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[Schola]

I think I will throw my opinion into the fire and see what comes out. I have installed Linux before and I personally did not like it. Maybe's it because I didn't do something here or there to make it 'perfect' but I didn't care for it. On the other hand I have been using BeOS since R4 and I love it. Super fast with a nice GUI and a command line if I need it. I would personally choose it over linux any day if I was forced not to use w2k. And for the staroffice, word debate, Gobe Productivity kicks star office's ass.

Schola

 

[DynaOne]

Keep posting then....

 

[marcio]

PCResources, it seems to me that you are the fanatic here as you don't want to hear what others are saying. I never said that Windows is great. I don't disagree that linux might surpass Windows in the future. But as it is now, it's not ready for the masses yet. You can have your opinion. I'm stating a fact.

You have not answered the question as to why corporations are not rolling out linux for their desktop office computers? This is the proof of the pudding. You claim that StarOffice is the greatest. It's free. You claim that linux is the greatest. It's also free. You claim it to be ready to the masses. It has several UI interface to choose including a Windows one. Corporations have linux personnel, and they probably know all you are saying. Then, why is it that no corporation is installing linux for all their average users? It doesn't make any sense. Unless you consider there has to be more to a successful successor of MS Windows besides stability, flexibility, performance, and cheap price.

BTW, saying sarcastically that some people have build stable linux machines just states the obvious. Nobody has argued the opposite.

 

[LiquidCyanide]

I see a lot of people complaining about Linux as being hard to install or incompatible. As has been said multiple tiems in this thread, Linux is incompatible because not enough people are demanding Linux driver files, this will be fixed as soon as Linux becomes even more mainstream as people want to get away from M$ evil ways.
Linux is so hard to install becasue not many have bothered developing a GUI install for it, there may be some out now, but all my distros have a DOS-similar program that partitions your drvie copies files etc. Some people need to develop an install program that automatically creates a swap file that is double the size of physical RAM, automaticaly makes a root partition, and knows how much space is needed for any other partitions you might want to make, (/bin, /dev, etc.) You may scream that this makes it so one may never need to learn how Linux really works, but that is waht EXPERT mode is for on every program ever. That is how i first learned that a .exe file is the actual program, i first thought it was a magic link on the $tart M3nu.
WE must make Linux available and easy to use for the home user AND keep it out of the hands of the corporations and keep the Public License as uncomplicated as possible.
Help your neighbor to run Linux, instead of reformating your HD when bored, go tell them to deltree /y their drive and tel them this is a golden opprotunity to switch to Linux, if they don't lose all their faith in you. You can now do everything in Linux, I mena the second AOL ported AIM to Linux was a golden day for many of us casual linux users, we could sit back and relax in Linux and not need a good reason to boot into it becasue we'd lose our computers functionality. Keep these words in mind next time you hear a novice complain about M$ the time to get converts is now. (pardon me sounding like a Commie(no offense all you Commies out there))

 

[unionfredo]

Like I said in my previous post, I enjoy using both SuSE and BeOS. Linux is a great OS but it has a long way before it can reach desktop status. I can't see a regular user trying to install through rpm and trying to fix dependencies. Linux users also want everything for free. Don't get me wrong free is good but you have to support some companies, especially if their work is deserving of your money, but I guess that's another topic all together


al

 

[hans007]

i tried linux. its stable. thats about it. its hard install, the UI pretty much sucks. Apps are hard to install, the UI is unintuitive. Etc.... win2k is great, and well i'm gonna install XP pro the minute i can get an OEM version of it

 

[MadRat]

RENTAL FEE = tax deductible


'nuff said.

 

[UberNeuman]

Is there a point to get Win XP, other than bragging rites? Really? I haven't seen anything that makes me want to move beyond my Win98/2000 set-up...

 

[MGMorden]

There's not going to be much point to running XP except for visual enhancements and a few more bundled programs (wouldn't be surprised if they eventually started bundling office w/ windows and doubled the price so you'd be forced to buy both).

As I've said before, I don't think Linux is ready for the mainstream yet. However, Linux is making advancements in user interfaces and funcitionality quicker than Windows is, and MS is starting to do stuff that is clearly gonna p!ss people off. I see this as evidence that Linux will become dominant EVENTUALLY. Sure I'm thinking 4, 5, maybe even 6 years off, but it's coming. I honestly would have had this opinion if I hadn't heard about the crap MS was starting with Office/Windows as far as registration and subscription is concerned. Of course this crap could turn out like Divx. Everybody hated that idea and it bite the dust. The question is would MS know when to dump this stuff or could it drive them under (I honestly don't want to see MS out of business, I just don't want to see them dominant).

 

[Jason Clark]

Spook, pretty simple. That portion of XP won't fly. But moving to linux? That maybe for some (incredibly small portion of the desktop user population) but it certainly is not for all.

 

[Platyply]

What the relatively new (commercially speaking) QNX operating system. I think its the best OS out there it just lacks support from the industry. I say once more programs and drivers are written for this OS, it just might take off (though it'll need media hype for this to happen)

 

[potz]

qnx is just another version of linux. linux is just a pain in the butt to use and configure. it has a LONG way to go before i would consider using it.

 

[MGMorden]

QNX is by no means another version of Linux. It's a UNIX, but that's where the simliarities end. It doesn't even use X11. It's not really new though, just been released for free recently. It's actually been around for a long time.

 

[DeathroweR]

Linux, shminux...

I'm pretty sure there will be a &quot;LITE&quot; version on WinXP. Think about it: most of the world's population will have no means/resources/desire for the authentication/registering crap. The only bad thing about it is the need for an alternate source of updates (Windows update site will most likely require registering); but then again I don't think it's going to be a real problem.

Then again - there's no real need to update until WinME/2K won't support DX10 or some new HW.

I've tried RedHat Linux 6.2 and 7.0 - how fvkking complicated does it have to be to change the resolution or to create a &quot;symbolic link&quot; to the desktop?
What files can I execute? Why do all of the apps look like they've been written by people either bored to death or slightly deranged? Why do I have to go hunt for a driver for HighPoint IDE only to find that it has been developped by some poor soul and stored in the middle of nowhere with no help files or instructions (which it's a sin to complain about, poor guy didn't get paid for it anyway); only to find out it won't install?
But I did like the strong command line and startup/shutdown - you can see the status of every service/process; also liked the multi-processor support.

Anyway, with the GUI loaded Linux is actually SLOWER and less stable than Windows; and by the time it becomes mainstream (if ever) it will probably be as bloated and evil and OWNED by somebody.

Just my opinion

 

[mpancha]

a lot of people say that we should switch to LInux and all that good stuff. True, Linux is nice, but it has a looooong way to go before it can replace Windows. I run both Linux and Windows. Linux runs really stable, and I have it running as a firewall/ftp server and router in a seperate computer. But my dad, there is no way he could install Linux and configure it on his own. Once Linux is at the point where I can hand my dad a Linux setup CD and just have him pop it in and then figure everything out on his own... Linux will be a good replacement for Windows. Til then... stick to win98.