POLL: If most games had a native Linux client, would you make the switch?

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Have you tried the latest version of Ubuntu? It's not there yet, but it's getting very, very close - and unless you have something really weird, drivers are no problem at all.

...
If only because hardware manufacturers don't provide drivers, Linux is still a bit more tricky to install.

However, once installed, Linux is pretty much trouble-free. No weird registry hiccups, no adware, no viruses, no copy protection madness, no nothing. I stuck with XP until Ubuntu had an adequate driver base, but since switching I've never looked back.

Look for this post again in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. I only say that because I've seen it in 1997, 1998, 1999, and every year since. Just change the Linux Distro and the version of Windows around.

Well, ultimately the quality of a Linux distro is judged by how much it is like Windows. Every new version of Windows results in every version of Linux being pushed several years back and trying to catch up again. I think Linux this time around has a chance of carving out its own niche like Mac though, given how people have in general rejected Vista's additions, as well as the fact that Linux hardware support is finally picking up. Ubuntu has basically given Linux a legitimate face in the consumer world that it's never had before. It's very contrary to how Linux has typically worked (turning it into a product, even if it's a free product), but it worked for Firefox. It does upset many of those who work on the code though, since Firefox is at least primarily from one organization, whereas Ubuntu is piggy backing on the works of others.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42


Look for this post again in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. I only say that because I've seen it in 1997, 1998, 1999, and every year since. Just change the Linux Distro and the version of Windows around.

I switched in 2006. Magically, I'm still using nothing but Linux.

The only difference is that my microphone input works now.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Fox5
It does upset many of those who work on the code though, since Firefox is at least primarily from one organization, whereas Ubuntu is piggy backing on the works of others.

Uh..what?

The whole point of Linux is that you pick and choose bits of software from hundreds of different sourcers. The core parts of every distribution - X11.org, the Linux kernel, the ALSA mixer, the EXT3 (or Reiser or XFS or whatever) filesystem, the GUI, and more - are all done by completely separate groups working independently.

I might note that while Linux has borrowed a lot of ideas - window composting, for example - from OSX and Windows, it has implemented them using free and open-source code. And quite a lot of very useful software - notably PERL - come from the wonderful world of open source.

 

[Sylvanas]

Absolutely I'd change in a heartbeat, of the 3 computers in this house, 2 are running Linux, all I use my Vista machine for is gaming, Linux does everything else better and faster. The good thing is a few studios are branching out with their games and releasing them for Mac, which means an OpenGL version of the game- this also means it's not such a large step anymore between windows and Linux, Mac could be the stepping stone... I hope

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
Absolutely I'd change in a heartbeat, of the 3 computers in this house, 2 are running Linux, all I use my Vista machine for is gaming, Linux does everything else better and faster. The good thing is a few studios are branching out with their games and releasing them for Mac, which means an OpenGL version of the game- this also means it's not such a large step anymore between windows and Linux, Mac could be the stepping stone... I hope

You might be right. Copy protection is a potential problem, but then again, most games are hacked within a few days of release anyway.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Fox5
I would definitely. Even if performance was a bit less, performance is cheap these days, and having an OS that just works is nice.

Fair enough, if you don't mind a slight performance hit th

When my Ubuntu screws up (usually because of something I was doing), it takes me at most an hour to fix it, and that's if I have to do a complete reinstall, and everything is immediately back in full working order.

Then you are clearly a knowledgeable linux user. Could you say the same as someone who is new to linux?

Furthermore, is that with a backup? Obviously that would hardly take any time; the same could be said for a Windows image. With a fresh install, it would take me days to get all of my settings and preferences just right.

Here is a comic showing what the average "let's fix linux" experience is like
http://www.xkcd.com/349/

When Windows screws up (quite often on its own),

Has never happened to me, nor anyone else I know who uses XP. Whenever I do hear about this happening, it ends up being a hardware issue that would have effected any linux distro in the same way.

it can take me a good part of a week to restore everything to good working order.

A WEEK?! A complete reinstall takes at most a few hours, and that's if you don't have a nice imaged system handy. Furthermore, since Windows has less customization than linux, it takes less time to bring it back to the same state.

And Linux just runs smoother, easier, and I appreciate apt-get and its bountiful selection of apps and libraries so so much.

Agreed with apt-get, so long as it's working. Linux is smoother, sure, but certainly not easier. Linux is easy... if you've had years of experience with it. But the same can be said of XP, so it's a wash.

Though Linux still lacks support for my desktop wireless card (open source drivers exist, but Ubuntu hasn't packaged binaries in yet and I'm not messing around with installing drivers myself only to be wiped out during a kernel update), and my Canon USB printer is likely to never have Linux drivers.
On the other hand, there's quite a bit of stuff that I own that doesn't work in Vista yet still works in Linux, including old apps (with WINE) and some hardware, like my TV tuner card.

Fair enough, Vista was one of those bad versions of Windows (like ME), but it's still valid to criticize it for its inadequacies. Regardless, seemingly all hardware works in XP, usually without any additional steps, and Vista has come a long way as far as hardware support (probably just as good as Ubuntu).

The market should have standardised on Linux two decades ago.

What's the reasoning behind this statement? If the market should have standardized on Linux, it would have.

A shared driver/software base, yet each company could push their own variant with their own GUI and special apps/features. All apps would run on all versions, but if someone wanted their system looking like Windows, it could be available, if someone wanted it like Mac, it would be available, and if someone wanted it like Ubuntu, it would be available and the same programs would run on all of them.

I'm pretty sure there are projects dedicated to this kind of thing. For instance, HowtoForge

Though I've got to admit, now that ram is so cheap, and virtualization works so well outside of 3d graphics, I often just run an Ubuntu virtual machine within Vista. I get a resilient, fast general use OS, and just rely on Windows (or SSH into the virtualized ubuntu) for 3d stuff.

I like this solution myself, but choose to dual-boot on my laptop. It's easy and fun, and the linux isn't too bad at using NTFS. And you can make XP read ext3 partitions easily, so that's pretty spiffy.

Gamers update their hardware's drivers almost whenever a new version is released. Currently, this is an indepth process in Linux compared to Windows.

Not on ubuntu (and probably debian in general). Apt-get automatically handles everything. For video cards, you need to install an additional app (that integrated fully into apt-get and you never have to see it again) called envyng to get the latest, up to date graphics drivers though. (well, it trails slightly but usually at most a month's lag time)
The latest versions of linux (talking primarily ubuntu but it should apply to any up to date distro) are easier to set up and use than Windows. I don't have to go hunting for drivers, I don't need floppies to install SATA drivers, I don't even need to hunt down basic must-have apps like firefox and an office suite, they're already there. I carry Linux on a USB drive for when I quickly need a full suite of applications on a public computer, and have it setup so I can boot off of it or run a virtualized OS (fits in 50MB of ram). I also have openoffice and opera installed as apps on my flash drive, but a non-admin windows system is so restricted that these don't always work and the windows systems are generally bloated and slow.

Which scenario is more likely?

1) Average user downloads XP/Vista drivers and installs them
2) Average user happens to know how to use apt-get and knows to install envying to get the latest drivers.

Furthermore, you don't need to install SATA drivers to install Windows on most SATA drives. And how much hunting do you really need to do to have firefox?

I have not had good luck with WINE and my games (save Fallout 1).

As a rule of thumb, WINE is probably 1-3 years behind in Windows compatibility, but I find once it gets it, it handles backwards compatibility better than Windows (and new releases don't break it).
WINE is very focused around nvidia drivers though, it doesn't play as well with Intel and ATI drivers. ATI drivers are getting better every release though, but it wasn't until this fall that I could actually get games to play in WINE on ati hardware, and Intel linux drivers are just so far behind in development. You hear about Intel drivers getting hardware features late on Windows? They never get them on Linux, most of their hardware doesn't support features beyond the DirectX7 level due to drivers. Linux 3d sucks and nvidia completely overwrites the files for it when you install their drivers, so much so that any performance 3d stuff on Linux has basically centralised around nvidia's drivers as the right way to do 3d, standards be damned. (leaving ati and intel in an extra poor spot when the standards suck, and nobody cares to follow them anyway)

WINE does not handle backwards computability than Windows on easily 99% of games. There are actually relatively few games/apps that completely work in WINE (as a percentage of total games/apps). Many games work mostly, some games work completely well, and others just won't work at all. The App Database has countless cases of games and applications that seem to be hopeless.

Furthermore, there's the problem of newer version of WINE sometimes breaking applications that work under older versions of WINE. I fear that the compatibility will never quite get there.

I would consider it if application support were as great as on Windows-based computers. I kind of need my MATLAB...

Funny you say that, I just installed MATLAB and Mathematica for my roommate in Linux. Unfortunately, COMSOL was Windows only, or at least I don't think there's a Linux version. He's currently running Windows with an Ubuntu virtual machine, as well as an Ubuntu hard boot, but he primarily sticks to Vista ever since I got the virtual machine working. (before that, he seemed to prefer ubuntu, and his laptop runs ubuntu with a windows virtual machine, mainly because old versions of windows have poor hardware support, and new versions have too many catches and too high of performance requirements for his 3 year old laptop)

Fair enough

Linux has viruses and malware, it just has fewer examples than Windows. The only reason for this is that fewer people use Linux. Viruses and adware would be just as big a problem if we had 100% Linux market share.

Partly true, but the Linux security model borrows from the same security model as just about every server in the world. Things are locked down tight, no more permissions are given than needed (unlike windows which is basically all or none, resulting in the defacto default of all), and updates propagate very quickly. Windows, on average, takes nearly a year to respond to outstanding exploits, Mac takes about a month, Linux takes less than a day. I'd say this is the important security statistic. Linux is already well tested for viruses and security since servers have things of value for hackers to want to attack, most servers run Linux, thus Linux is regularly tested and there is big money in breaking into Linux systems. (though the same can't be said for the security of individual linux apps, but since the systems are locked down pretty tightly, they should be OK even if the apps don't follow good security models)

Not partly true, completely true. The claim was that Linux is invulnerable to viruses and malware, and that is an outright falsehood.

Linux rarely takes less than a day to respond to exploits. Windows has had a turnaround time that was very rapid on some exploits, especially certain critical examples.

Your entire reply seems to be conjecture and not based in fact at all. Linux does tend to use a great security model, but this does not make the operating as invulnerable as people like to pretend. Not only do updates to critical system flaws often take time to propagate (more than a day), but it is up to the user to keep their systems updated. The average user doesn't bother updating their computer, which is what makes Windows vulnerabilities so dangerous; the fixes are out there, but people aren't updating.

This problem would be present in Linux as well. If the average user doesn't bother to update Windows, they won't bother to update Linux. In the end, you have a user base that is perhaps slightly more secure but on average just as vulnerable.

Until it's to the point that my mother-in-law can install it and use it on a day-to-day basis, then it's got no shot.

Not my mother-in-law, but my mother. Windows XP got so bloated with the service packs that the computer was unusable (800Mhz, 10GB harddrive, and 256MB ram), so I wiped it and put Xubuntu on. It's not perfect, but it's functional, and basically serves as a firefox machine for her. Occasionally she'll open up a word document in open office, or watch a video clip.

I agree, casual users like your mother-in-law and mine just need a browser, an e-mail client, and a word processor. That's pretty much it. Their needs are easily met with Windows Or Linux; but must people buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, so they just end up using that. Microsoft has the money to almost strongarm manufacturers into including Windows on their PCs. The Linux community does not.

BTW, Linux is easier to install than Windows. Windows updates its installer less frequently and asks lots of questions, Linux (ubuntu at least) it down to put cd in, fully usable OS pops up, double click install, add a user account, start install, browse internet while you wait, you're done, reboot.
What Linux lacks is not an easy installer, but to be preinstalled. Most people can barely install apps, let alone an OS, so it doesn't matter how easy it is. Until it gets a major push from Dell or someone (and dell has given it a decent push with their ubuntu systems) and some marketting (like Apple) to make people want it, it's not going to go anywhere. As it is, people who want mac know they want mac, people who want a PC want windows and not something else, no matter how easy it is. People who want linux, install it themselves, and thus starve the market of any demand for Linux systems.

Completely true, most people only use Windows because it's what's preinstalled and there is no reason to change. If Linux was preinstalled on all machines, people would likely use it instead. But like I said, this is a financial problem. Contractual arrangements with Microsoft end up producing more profit by installing Windows than by installing Ubuntu. This is why it's so difficult to actually get an Ubuntu desktop from Dell; they really want to push you into getting a machine with Vista and earn that extra revenue.

Of course, ultimately Linux is still in the position that it improves by leaps and bounds every year. It's getting very close, but I think it needs another year (maybe 2) before its as mature as Mac OSX and Windows. It does do many many many things better, including in terms of ease of use, but there are still things that it just doesn't do right or at all that need to be filled in. (Lack of apps mainly, and hardware support that's getting better but still isn't perfect/complete) Though OSX doesn't have much of that either, but gets around it by coming preinstalled on select systems. That, with a marketting campaign, is probably what Linux needs more so.

Agreed, the rate of improvement of Linux is greater than Windows. I think Linux (certainly Ubuntu) is ready for the average user who will not be doing anything but internet browsing and e-mail checking.

What is needed is user friendliness. This has come a long way for Linux, but there are still problems that have already been pointed out. Linux already has such a high degree of customization that the Linux community should be focusing on increasing ease of use, which is on the up and up.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Originally posted by: Fox5
It does upset many of those who work on the code though, since Firefox is at least primarily from one organization, whereas Ubuntu is piggy backing on the works of others.

Uh..what?

The whole point of Linux is that you pick and choose bits of software from hundreds of different sourcers. The core parts of every distribution - X11.org, the Linux kernel, the ALSA mixer, the EXT3 (or Reiser or XFS or whatever) filesystem, the GUI, and more - are all done by completely separate groups working independently.

I might note that while Linux has borrowed a lot of ideas - window composting, for example - from OSX and Windows, it has implemented them using free and open-source code. And quite a lot of very useful software - notably PERL - come from the wonderful world of open source.

My point wasn't that Linux is built by separate parts, it's that Ubuntu gives a commercial aspect to Linux that people attribute the whole of the operating system to. With Windows, nearly all of the code is Microsoft's own and everyone was paid for their work. A lot of the stuff included in Ubuntu, that people see and give credit to Ubuntu for, was made by others, often for free, and is used without attribution or payment. This is fair game with GPL open source stuff, but Ubuntu itself is not nearly as faceless as the components that make it up and receives much of the credit and any money that comes about as a result. There have been complaints by those in the open source world about Ubuntu taking without contributing back, and in general open source apps are designed to be generic while big ones like Ubuntu and Firefox aren't.

Then you are clearly a knowledgeable linux user. Could you say the same as someone who is new to linux?

Furthermore, is that with a backup? Obviously that would hardly take any time; the same could be said for a Windows image. With a fresh install, it would take me days to get all of my settings and preferences just right.

No backups. As for knowledgeable... well as I said, even reinstalling gets me a fully functional system, complete with installed programs and no registry errors, in less than an hour. Many Windows problems cannot be fixed without a reinstall, and the process to get everything back into the condition it was takes more than an hour for sure.

Most recent big examples:
Friend's Vista install was f'ed up. .NET applications would not work. Computer would fail to reinstall .NET as well. The installation program for his ATI drivers would fail to run. Could only be fixed by uninstalling Service Pack 1, and then performing a repair install of Windows with many little steps along the way. If a similar mess up happened under Ubuntu, you can tell the package manager to fix broken packages, or at worse just do a normal install over your current install.

I tried to update my Windows to 64 bit. Would crash instantly upon rebooting. Linux 64 bit ran fine. Not sure what the issue was, but it was fixed by downgrading my bios. However, even with Windows EZ-Transfer, it still didn't successfully transfer my programs and settings over, despite creating a 72GB file that was supposed to contain all my settings, files, and programs.

Which scenario is more likely?

1) Average user downloads XP/Vista drivers and installs them
2) Average user happens to know how to use apt-get and knows to install envying to get the latest drivers.

Furthermore, you don't need to install SATA drivers to install Windows on most SATA drives. And how much hunting do you really need to do to have firefox?

Well in that case you're not comparing ease of use, you're comparing how Windows like it is.
Windows install discs are only updated for the service packs, and in general contain less hardware support than Linux for hardware outside of mainstream. If you're using the most recent install disc available for Windows and Linux, it's far more likely that the Windows one will lack drivers than the Linux one.
Additionally, drivers will autodetect and auto-update on Linux, something which has been in place on Windows for a while, but will often grab older drivers, miss driver updates, or just not have driver updates. Linux updates drivers for all hardware. Installing new drivers is something that's out of the norm for both Windows and Linux users, and if someone can figure out how to do it on windows, they can figure out how to type sudo apt-get install envyng to get the latest drivers in ubuntu. (or download them and run them just like they'd run the driver install in windows) If you don't need bleeding edge on either system, it's not a problem. Problem is that being "not bleeding edge" with ATI cards on Linux typically means huge bugs and problems that get fixed each month. Actually, that's not so different from their Windows driver releases, other than they don't have to struggle as much against things being made for nvidia on Windows. (The Way It's Meant to Be Played is nothing compared to the mess Linux 3d is)

This problem would be present in Linux as well. If the average user doesn't bother to update Windows, they won't bother to update Linux. In the end, you have a user base that is perhaps slightly more secure but on average just as vulnerable.

Linux patches are generally the first available for a cross platform issue. How long it takes for each distro to roll those into their automatic update system varies, but it's less than a year. Of course, Vista, Mac, and Linux all have automatic update systems now, and in general none respond to exploits immediately. I'd say Linux does have a significant advantage in speed though, as unlike Mac and Windows it (Debian at least) has repositories for distributing fixes that have not been fully tested, but that has its own downsides. The fully tested repositories trail windows by years though.

 

[BW86]

yes - I prefer Linux to Windows

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: drebo
Nope. Linux is only good for one thing: appliances. Set it up once and forget about it. It doesn't make a good desktop OS. There are simply too many compatibility issues and quirks. Windows may be relatively bloated and constricting, but it needs to be that way in order to maintain proper support of the myriad of different hardware vendors and components that can be used with it.

I disagree, I installed Ubuntu on my box and after it was done installing every device in my PC worked without me having to install a single driver. Wireless card, Sound card, printer. Windows has never done that for me, ever. I was impressed, and shocked as hell. My Ubuntu has ran like clockwork since that day. Installing new drivers isn't simple like in XP/Vista, but the trade off of a faster OS that's more stable and cooler (Beryl ftw!) is well worth the hassle, but I'm not a fan of easy point and click, I'm an old school die hard CLI type everything out kinda guy so Windows has never been my cup of tea *shrug*

Unless a person has some funky ass hardware Ubuntu's driver support is quite amazing. I'm willing to bet no version of Windows ever will have drivers for every one of my devices out the box

I will say this, installing Ubuntu was even easier than XP or Vista, and once it finished, I was able to add open office + all the other apps I wanted with simply selecting them from a list and clicking the install button one time. It installed far quicker than XP and when all was said and done I had an OS with everything I needed, Open Office, Gimp, DVD ripping etc. I was impressed at how easy it was. My grandma could have installed it, if you can put a disc in an optical drive and turn a computer on and click "install" you can install Ubuntu.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Fox5
The market should have standardised on Linux two decades ago. A shared driver/software base, yet each company could push their own variant with their own GUI and special apps/features. All apps would run on all versions, but if someone wanted their system looking like Windows, it could be available, if someone wanted it like Mac, it would be available, and if someone wanted it like Ubuntu, it would be available and the same programs would run on all of them..

For most of the 90s, especially the early 90s, Linux was extremely unpolished. I started using Debian in 1996 with version 1.1. We've come a long way.

Personally, I just don't like GNU on the desktop. I think it's decent enough in the workplace, but for home use, there are too many 75% complete programs out there for me. I stopped using Linux daily when XP came out because it finally met enough of my needs.

 

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: mb
Not only no, but hell no. There are so much more problems with Linux as a desktop OS than just the lack of games.

Not only yes, but hell yes. There are so much more problems with Vista as a desktop OS than just the lack of drivers and security and the presence of price gouging.

 

[quadomatic]

Sure would switch. The only reason I ever kept Windows on my system while I had linux installed was to play games. I'd be able to do everything+games AND i'd have support for my ATI HDTV Wonder. Vista x64 doesn't support HDTV Wonder.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: bullbert

Originally posted by: mb
Not only no, but hell no. There are so much more problems with Linux as a desktop OS than just the lack of games.

Not only yes, but hell yes. There are so much more problems with Vista as a desktop OS than just the lack of drivers and security and the presence of price gouging.

Wtf? Linux is known for having very few drivers... -_-

No, there is absolutely no reason why I would switch. Linux has nothing on Windows Vista when it comes to what I do.

 

[ShawnD1]

I would not switch. I've kept Ubuntu Linux running in a virtual machine for quite some time now and I can confidently say that Linux is not ready.

Installing things should be as simple as double clicking them, or things should run without being installed (just like DOS programs). Neither of these is true for what seems like every program I've tried. Most RPM files don't seem to work. I'm probably doing something wrong, but that's my whole point. How am I doing this wrong? Why do I need an instruction manual just to get an installer package to run?

The biggest problem by far is that I can't get the networking to work. I can access the files on other Windows computers, but they can't access my files. I'll select a folder and tell it to share, and it never does. I have absolutely no idea what is wrong. I've done file sharing on Windows and I've done file sharing on a Mac. Windows and Mac both work right away, but Linux is giving me some problems. Why is it so damn hard?

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I would not switch. I've kept Ubuntu Linux running in a virtual machine for quite some time now and I can confidently say that Linux is not ready.

Installing things should be as simple as double clicking them, or things should run without being installed (just like DOS programs). Neither of these is true for what seems like every program I've tried. Most RPM files don't seem to work. I'm probably doing something wrong, but that's my whole point. How am I doing this wrong? Why do I need an instruction manual just to get an installer package to run?

The biggest problem by far is that I can't get the networking to work. I can access the files on other Windows computers, but they can't access my files. I'll select a folder and tell it to share, and it never does. I have absolutely no idea what is wrong. I've done file sharing on Windows and I've done file sharing on a Mac. Windows and Mac both work right away, but Linux is giving me some problems. Why is it so damn hard?

Installing programs?

apt-get install program
run progam

That pretty much covers it most of the time. As far as file sharing, who knows, probably a permissions issue .. does your Windows computer have an account set up properly on the Linux machine ... etc?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
I would not switch. I've kept Ubuntu Linux running in a virtual machine for quite some time now and I can confidently say that Linux is not ready.

Installing things should be as simple as double clicking them, or things should run without being installed (just like DOS programs). Neither of these is true for what seems like every program I've tried. Most RPM files don't seem to work. I'm probably doing something wrong, but that's my whole point. How am I doing this wrong? Why do I need an instruction manual just to get an installer package to run?

The biggest problem by far is that I can't get the networking to work. I can access the files on other Windows computers, but they can't access my files. I'll select a folder and tell it to share, and it never does. I have absolutely no idea what is wrong. I've done file sharing on Windows and I've done file sharing on a Mac. Windows and Mac both work right away, but Linux is giving me some problems. Why is it so damn hard?

Installing programs?

apt-get install program
run progam

That pretty much covers it most of the time. As far as file sharing, who knows, probably a permissions issue .. does your Windows computer have an account set up properly on the Linux machine ... etc?

ShawnD1, you know you have to put in some effort to learn new things right? They don't always drop into your lap.

Installing apps under Linux has become much easier than it was in the past. Building and installing apps from source code can still be a pain because of the extra steps, but there are usually RPMs or debs available.

Edit - The HDTV Wonder is effectively a dead product. It never worked right under Windows XP due to Big Content interference with its capabilities and pressure on ATI. Its drivers were never polished and barely worked under XP 32.

 

[HannibalX]

I like Linux in a server environment. I really like Fedora. When I do server installs I basically never fiddle with anything in the OS outside of the initial install and software updates. Everything is done from the terminal window. Most server apps have html based web administration so I don't even end up spending much time with the OS per say - I mostly use the web interface from my Windows PC.

As a desktop OS, ehh, not so much. Windows does that job very well.

 

[Anubis]

no
windows works fine

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

No. No good reason to switch.

 

[evident]

why? vista is great for me. what can't vista do that linux can? linux still does not have a consistent UI like win does and that's probably one of my biggest pet peeves of any distro.

 

[ggnl]

Not on my current rig since I already have a copy of windows, but I'd consider it for my next build, which won't be for 3-4 years hopefully.

 

[KMFJD]

Vista works great, why switch?

 

[PepePeru]

i'd consider it

 

[Maximilian]

Hell no... So linux manages to do the same as windows can already do, awesome, ill just get used to a new UI etc for absolutely no reason at all and get to solve a new horde of problems with linux... Some guys like a challenge, im not one of those guys. :frown:

Not to mention that to problem solve you would have to deal with those pushy linux types who think linux is the best thing ever and have their head halfway up their own backside, pass thanks heh. Heres an example:

Originally posted by: bullbert
Not only yes, but hell yes. There are so much more problems with Vista as a desktop OS than just the lack of drivers and security and the presence of price gouging.

Note how the pushy linux type completely ignores that linux security only seems better because nobody uses it compared to windows. Plus resorting to the very old "vista has no drivers" crap, where have you been? Vista has plenty of drivers these days, 64 bit and all. Also note the indirect preaching of "its free and windows isnt" Well you get what you pay for.

 

[Fox5]

Reasons I would use Linux over Windows:

Generally better support for old apps (through Wine) than the latest version of Windows.
Faster boot up times, and less background clutter in general.
Apt-get blows away the traditional "Download file, double click, install" method. Generally better/more free programs on Linux as well than Windows. When I need to do some obscure thing on Windows, I often have to download a buggy shareware app that may not even work without buying it. Linux often has a better program available free. And Synaptic rules for getting development libraries set up.
The Windows registry.
Windows reinstalls. Reinstalling Windows breaks all your programs and user accounts. Reinstalling Linux takes control of your previously install programs and user accounts, plus it's much more likely that a broken Linux install can be fixed without a reinstall than a broken Windows install. Not having to deal with Microsoft's asinine activation hassles is nice as well. Oh, you upgraded your cpu, you must reactivate. Oh, you bought the OEM version, it's tied to your original cpu + motherboard and thus we cannot reactivate. Or you can pay twice as much and get the upgrade version, in which case if you don't have a copy of Windows XP installed, you have to install twice. Oh, and you can't do an upgrade install of an older version of XP or Vista over a newer version, adding even more hassle. Of course, you could always double the cost again and get the full retail version. Oh, and you can't upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit Windows, you must do a fresh install.
I've found Linux is generally better with old hardware than newer versions of Windows. It will run better on older computers, and recognize and have drivers for old hardware that Windows has long since abandoned. Not to mention that most modern Linuxes will find and install drivers for every piece of supported hardware, whereas Windows STILL forces you to hunt the Internet or keep driver cds around.

The only thing Windows has going for it is the commercial application support, Linux is even catching up in hardware support. I've had so, so many problems with Windows. Granted, most of these are because I'm an advanced user, and a lot are things that Microsoft probably didn't intend for you to do, but that's the great thing about Linux, anyone can add in support for what they intend to do and somebody probably already has.
And come on, the Linux versions of Matlab and COMSOL (Java too, btw) perform way better than the Windows versions, isn't that reason enough? Seriously, you can't beat having JIT code running as fast as native...