Fixer wrote:
He doesn't see the point - he said "Why? Windows works! It's just there, and it does everything you need it to do, including games which Linux can't".
My, his view of the world is so limited. And judging from the fact that he judges a computer system based on how many clicks it takes to accomplish something...
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
That's the wrong question. The right questionS are 'Do I need a 64-bit OS?' and 'If I do need something 64-bit, would Linux/Ubuntu be sufficient?'.
To answer, based on your usage patterns: no, you do not need a 64-bit OS, nor a 64-bit CPU, for that matter. This hardware was developed to have the machine cope with lots of memory beyond the 4 GB barrier in a linear fashion, so without the use of paging; as well as grab more instructions from main memory per clock tick so it would run faster. Only people who actually
use machine all the time, and consider a load of '1' to be 'rather low' or a memory usage of 4 GB or more to be 'peanuts' will benefit from migrating to this kind of hardware.
The only programs your computer will have to work for are, indeed, the games you plan on playing, but considering that the rate at which new 'kewl' games appear is now measured in the single digit numbers per year, I wouldn't worry about getting the fastest CPU, or that it's not a 64-bit native multiple core device. Memory bandwidth and graphics card performance are far more important bottlenecks for the time being. Less, of course, if you lower your standards for eye candy.
In addition, support for 64-bit drivers is still shaky. People are learning to program good drivers again, and that takes time. Your El Cheapo network or sound card might not be supported in a 64-bits driver, negating much of the advantages of going 64-bits to begin with. Caveat emptor.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
The question is again wrong; you must ask yourself what you would need Linux for in the first place to make your system dual-boot. If everything you do is handled by XP at the moment, then I wouldn't really bother with Linux. It's more stable and robust than XP, true, but quite frankly, if you don't push your machine to the limit all the time, and stick to single-user usage then XP is pretty solid for regular use too. I've been using Win2K for years now, and the only times it crashed on me were because of flaky hardware. I am still using Linux because some of the programs I
need for my work are not available in a Windows-edition, or require me to run all sorts of ixemul-like emulation software, harming performance.
Another reason to go with Linux is that you are free from weird world domination ideas from Microsoft, as well as more or less free from nasty worms, viruses and trojans. However, a double firewall and a good security policy on your machine can turn XP into a formidable bastion already. For regular use, if you know what you are doing...? XP will do just fine.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
Vista is XP On Steroids; all the bad things without any of the good ideas MS had when they were developing this OS. The new minikernel demonstrated by a lead developer the other day is actually an interesting development. Microsoft had to, I think, because Vista brought the company to its knees. If they can pull it off, then there will
finally be something elegant coming out of Redmond. It won't be finished until 2010, and by that time your machine will be obsolete to play the games with your brothers anyway.
Then again, who am I kidding. It's Microsoft.
- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
It will of course be dominant, but not as easily as it used to be. Mac's Leopard is, from what I hear, quite a sexy thing; and Linux isn't sitting still either. Things have improved a LOT since the days of RedHat 6 and Slackware 5.
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
In 2007, I'm still using Win2K, and the only snag I encountered was with Logitech's Revolution mouse which was Vista-only for no good reason at all. Draw your own conclusions.
- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market? :crazy:
Perhaps. I doubt it. It will make MS sweat a little bit more, though.
- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
Noone can tell you exactly. Current estimates run in the tens of millions of users, I believe. It filled gaps in low-cost environments (the $100-computer runs Linux), and excells in small business server situations, where the reliability of Unix can be used at no great cost. It is the staple of the scientific community, for it allows cheap parallel processing at a fraction of the cost of a genuine supercomputer. Currently some city councils are running tests to see if Linux can be used as a full desktop replacement OS---München was the first city to migrate, and Steve 'Fling Them Chairs' Ballmer was so ticked about Linux gaining a foothold that he personally flew to München to offer the council a deal They Indeed Could Refuse. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few more years.
- How commercial is Linux?
As commercial as you want it to be. I'm not sure why you ask this.
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol :lol:
Haha. No.
