Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: Ral-Clan on March 26, 2014, 11:43:42 AM
-
Hi guys,
I'm sticking with Windows XP for a while yet as it has several applications I really like and it supports some older hardware (graphics tablet, pro music card) I need to keep running.
However, I'm considering my upgrade path for when I am finally forced to leave Windows XP in the future. I'd prefer to not have to use Windows 7 or 8.
So for the first time I am very seriously considering Linux. I would like to start by dipping my toe into Linux with the aim of eventually make it my day-to-day OS in a few years. In order to ease myself into it, I'd like to set up a dual boot Windows XP / Linux system and slowly migrate as much of my work as possible over to Linux as I get used to it. My computer is an older Windows XP era box: Intel Pentium4 running at 2.8Ghz, hyperthreading CPU with 3GB of RAM and a 160GB hard drive.
I know very little about Linux, so am grateful for all recommendations and answers to the following questions:
1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?
2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
6. Any complications or pitfalls I need to watch out for on a dual boot system?
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
The things I am going to miss most are the EXCELLENT (truly outstanding) quality of WinVICE and WinUAE emulators on Windows. These are 99.8% perfect emulators. I've heard the quality of Commodore emulation is not quite as good under Linux (emulators not as well developed). For instance, I push WinUAE quite hard, running intensive Amiga graphics and 3d rendering packages and timing-critical MIDI software. It performs like a champ.
I also have a semi-pro PCI audio card (M-Audio Delta 192) which I use for music composing. It's a high quality, low latency card and I hope there have been Linux drivers for it.
I'm also really going to miss Sony Vegas non-linear video editing software, for which I paid $100. It's superb. Is there something equivalent on Linux?
Thanks for any input you have...
-
I'm no Linux pro, I generally find my self hating it after a while, but with that being said, I've been running Linux Mint Mate Edition for a few months now and am really quite fond of it.
-
Hi guys,
I'm sticking with Windows XP for a while yet as it has several applications I really like and it supports some older hardware (graphics tablet, pro music card) I need to keep running.
However, I'm considering my upgrade path for when I am finally forced to leave Windows XP in the future. I'd prefer to not have to use Windows 7 or 8.
So for the first time I am very seriously considering Linux. I would like to start by dipping my toe into Linux with the aim of eventually make it my day-to-day OS in a few years. In order to ease myself into it, I'd like to set up a dual boot Windows XP / Linux system and slowly migrate as much of my work as possible over to Linux as I get used to it. My computer is an older Windows XP era box: Intel Pentium4 running at 2.8Ghz, hyperthreading CPU with 3GB of RAM and a 160GB hard drive.
I know very little about Linux, so am grateful for all recommendations and answers to the following questions:
1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?
2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
6. Any complications or pitfalls I need to watch out for on a dual boot system?
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
The things I am going to miss most are the EXCELLENT (truly outstanding) quality of WinVICE and WinUAE emulators on Windows. These are 99.8% perfect emulators. I've heard the quality of Commodore emulation is not quite as good under Linux (emulators not as well developed). For instance, I push WinUAE quite hard, running intensive Amiga graphics and 3d rendering packages and timing-critical MIDI software. It performs like a champ.
I also have a semi-pro PCI audio card (M-Audio Delta 192) which I use for music composing. It's a high quality, low latency card and I hope there have been Linux drivers for it.
I'm also really going to miss Sony Vegas non-linear video editing software, for which I paid $100. It's superb. Is there something equivalent on Linux?
Thanks for any input you have...
Hi, I am also new to Linux since a half year when the XP on my IBM R40 laptop (1,7 Ghz 512 RAM only) collapsed.
I dicided to use Mint because it looks similar to XP. It has a common base with Ubuntu which is the most mainstream Linux nowadays, after it in the ranking is Mint.
I use the XCFE desktop beacause it is more lightweight - I looked also at all the other desktops of Mint but there is not a big difference in how they look - at least for me.
For some things I still have to use XP - e.g. for updating my TomTom (crappy thing btw. not only because Linux support is missing). When You install Mint next to an existing XP there is no hassle (nothing is destroyed) to make the partition before the installation because You are guided inbetween the installation process.
All hardware I use (onboard wlan, sound and gfx) quickly worked without any additional hassle for installation. Printers are installed faster than you can put a paper into the tray - automatically with no interaction needed.
You need no antivirus. Using midi files wasn´t easy for me - I wondered that they did not worked out of the box - because most things do so.
The standard XP was at first a little faster than Mint but after a half year now it is slow again. Mint runs the same speed as in the beginning.
Sometimes Libre Office crashes. Overall I am quite impressed of Linux and it is better then I expected even that I use it on an quite weak HW, especially regarding the RAM.
-
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
Running XP in a virtual machine (VirtualBox, KVM, ...) will be most compatible. Wine won't likely be compatible with all the software.
For virtual machine 3GB may be on the small side but that also depends on the Linux distro chosen. I upgraded my old computer to 4GB for that purpose but I only need to run the VM once in a while anymore.
-
I think most of the risk with running XP is overstated.
I haven't updated it in maybe 12 months, runs as well as ever and no malware. I use Zone Alarm firewall, I do not log in with an administrator account, I use AVG free. And commonsense: there are NO Nigerian Princes who want to transfer their riches into your bank account!
Maybe you can still keep going for a fair bit longer.
I know there's a few Linux fans here, but in my experience, no, it doesn't "just work".
-
I love Windows 7 (hate Windows 8, but that's a different story), properly configured it's what I install on all our business PC's. That being said, for older systems that can't run 7 I install Ubuntu. It's the easiest to setup, most user-friendly (in my experience), and has the best online support forums for when you need help. A basic Ubuntu install will give you everything you need (latest versions of LibreOffice, FireFox, music & media player software, the only thing I install on top of that is a screensaver package since the default install includes no screensavers. Throw GIMP and VLC on there and most users won't need anything else).
Your mileage may vary.
-
Tips on running Linux: don't. It's a bloated mess of an operating system made of forty years of layered kludges to take it from driving serial terminals on PDP-11s to running a graphical desktop on modern PCs, the UI for Linux and Linux software alike is universally mediocre-to-vomitous, and there's typically three or four different versions of every software package tailored for every desktop environment except the one you're using, with at least a one-in-fifty chance that installing one will break some other completely unrelated program because of ridiculously arcane dependency trees. Stick with XP.
-
@ commodorejohn
Sounds like you are describing UNIX, because Linux hasn't been around for forty years.
And Linux continues to evolve.
Further, virtually all OS' can drive a terminal, personally I've found that useful.
Linux is no more kludged than Windows.
That being said, I'm not giving XP up yet either.
I'm typing on a laptop under XP right now and I have one desktop at home with XP on it (that dual boots with Ubuntu).
My netbook runs Win7, but I tend not to use it because its slower.
And perversely enough I spend more time using MorphOS than Linux or XP.
-
I wouldnt say its a mess if you stick with a mainstream release. You cant go wrong with Ubuntu. The latest release is quite nice. With its built in App store you can get just about anything you need and know it will work and play nice with your system.
-
Sounds like you are describing UNIX, because Linux hasn't been around for forty years.
And Linux continues to evolve.
Linux hasn't been around for forty years, but it slavishly reimplements the twenty-plus years of UNIX cruft it adopted wholesale in its initial development. And it continues to "evolve" only in the sense of piling on more layers of cruft in an attempt to be a modern desktop OS without having to revise the design to fit that goal.
Linux is no more kludged than Windows.
Ohhhh yes it is.
-
Ohhhh yes it is.
Your opinion.
-
Your opinion.
[youtube]pWdd6_ZxX8c[/youtube]
-
And...that's just silly.
Kind of like defending an OS that uses a flat database like the Windows Registry.
-
Maybe you guys can take the "Linux sucks" discussion to some other thread?
1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?
Ubuntu is the most beginner friendly one, has the biggest and most friendly user base (i.e. very easy to get help) and comes with comfortable workarounds for problems like proprietary drivers.
Ubuntu switched to a new desktop a few years ago though. The change is not as extreme as the one in Windows 8, but it's driven by the same idea ("same GUI on Desktop and handheld/touch devices") and it might take some time to get used to it.
If Ubuntu's desktop ("Unity") is not your cup of tea, use Linux Mint instead. It's based on Ubuntu, but uses more traditional desktops.
2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?
Ubuntu (and Linux Mint, IIRC) can be tested using "Live" DVDs/USB sticks. You might want to try that first.
Ubuntu can also be installed in parallel to an existing Windows install, without having to reformat your existing harddisk partitions. There even used to be an option to install Ubuntu into a directory on your Windows partition, that's a killer feature if you just want to "check it out" - not sure if that option is still available.
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
If Linux is the second OS you install, the install process usually takes care of everything - including stuff like importing Firefox bookmarks from the Windows partition.
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
Ubuntu does that for you. You should still create backups first, obviously.
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
Mostly compatible, but might require some work. If you choose one of the big distributions (again: Ubuntu), you won't encounter Linux software that you can't run. Ubuntu and Mint are compatible (mostly, depending on what versions of what libraries a particular Ubuntu/Mint version is using.).
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
Depends on the apps. Wine is quite usable for a lot of stuff, games might need a problem.
Personally, I'd simply install Virtualbox and run WindowsXP under Linux. For safety reasons, make sure it doesn't have net access. Virtualbox can hide the actual Desktop and make the windows of your Win applications behave like windows of native applications (move them around on the desktop etc.)
The things I am going to miss most are the EXCELLENT (truly outstanding) quality of WinVICE and WinUAE emulators on Windows.
VICE on Linux should be as good as WinVICE, FS-UAE is using a different approach than WinUAE (Launcher + Emulator excutable, + "ingame" menus that can be used via Joystick) but is very good already and improving constantly.
-
Maybe you guys can take the "Linux sucks" discussion to some other thread?
Maybe not. ral-clan is a Windows user looking at maybe switching to Linux, which is exactly where I was two and a half years ago, and I put weeks of time and effort into the endeavor, only to discover that it isn't good, doesn't get better with familiarity, and I'd have made better use of that time banging my head against a brick wall. I'm just trying to save him the pain.
-
Hey, I almost forgot:
There's another, more important decision to make when checking out Linux: Which Desktop to use - on Linux, you have a choice. Ubuntu and (AFAIK) Linux Mint come in different 'flavours', using different Desktops.
Simplified overview:
KDE: Imagine a traditional Windows desktop with a ton of configuration options thrown in.
Gnome 2: The Mac approach - not many configuration options, but trying to give the user a simple and elegant default look and feel. Abandoned by the original developers, now continued by a new team as "MATE")
Gnome Shell/Unity: Two projects trying to create a GUI that fits all kind of devices. They got rids of the traditional desktop elements ("Start" menu, some sort of dock/taskbar etc.) replacing them with new ideas, like: touch the top left corner of the screen to get a stylish overview over all running apps, click on the one you want to switch to.
XFCE/LXDE: Basically clones of Gnome2, with an emphasis on using fewer ressources. Good for older machines with less memory.
-
1. omg! ubuntu stated that Lubuntu is a good XP replacement. I tend to agree.
I downloaded both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions and they can run live as well.
2. Will xp get easy activation after April 1st? Will not install after too many installs?
3. Linux Mint 13 Maya is one of my favorite distros. with Cinnamon desktop.
4. The software app. has a lot of good software in Ubuntu.
5. I am not against Windows I just can not afford it and it comes in handy some times.
-
Have to say I like Unity and the Ubuntu app store. Much better than how Windows 8 implements it. Again, this is something I set up for people who don't want to muck around a lot, I've installed it on everything from laptops to old decommissioned Dell business-class PC's, no problems with drivers. One guy wanted to add a wireless PCI card to his and I was pretty nervous, but open the case, plug in the card, power it up, and the card was automatically detected and the correct drivers installed. Nice! ;)
Geeze, some of you guys, just negativity, negativity, negativity. Instead of bashing everything, how about suggest another operating system he could try? :angry:
-
Geeze, some of you guys, just negativity, negativity, negativity. Instead of bashing everything, how about suggest another operating system he could try? :angry:
There's no reason we can't both bash Linux and suggest other options, you know. I've already suggested sticking with XP; another alternative might be to run 32-bit 7 and copy XP's explorer.exe over it (never tried this myself, but I understand it works.) ReactOS and Haiku are two OSes I've had my eye on for a while, but ReactOS has been stuck in alpha for a long time, and Haiku, while more complete (though they still label it as "alpha,") suffers from a dearth of software.
-
I'll agree with John there, ReactOS does look promising, if Microsoft doesn't litigate it out of existence.
-
Why switch? Why not make your system dual-boot Windows and Linux and have the best of both worlds? It's much easier to do than you might think.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to add a second drive exclusively for Linux and then use the BIOS settings to select which drive/OS you want to boot with.
-
This has been a very informative threat - please keep it coming - even the warnings about using Linux.
Honestly, I am totally happy with my XP system. If it wasn't for the fact I'm bracing for the malware onslaught to hit after April 8th, I would be in bliss. I'm usually very careful when browsing and take precautions.
I hope the malware onslaught is over-rated, though, like Y2K was.
Actually, I'll be happy, when, in six years, XP has become such a forgotten, niche OS that the malware authors don't even target it anymore.
The Dual boot Linux/XP seems very attractive. I'm extremely pleased to hear that the Ubuntu install takes care of all of that for you automatically.
-
I hope the malware onslaught is over-rated, though, like Y2K was.
The "malware onslaught" is Microsoft FUD. As long as you use a modern browser and don't visit any "bad" sites, you should be fine.
Also, this:
https://www.malwarebytes.org/
-
@ral-clan
Im on a closer situation, windows 7 is ok but sometimes i feel that privacity is just garbage for this OS.
Ubuntu with "unity" isnt enought responsive, devian feels too heavy and different light linux distros need a knowledge of command line for configuration (not for me), the lack of audio software is a step back for me, at the end still with w7 for some of this reasons.
-
Why switch? Why not make your system dual-boot Windows and Linux and have the best of both worlds? It's much easier to do than you might think.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to add a second drive exclusively for Linux and then use the BIOS settings to select which drive/OS you want to boot with.
That's what he's looking to do.
Suggest you start with Ubuntu in dual boot. As you're coming from the world of Windows can I suggest you familiarise yourself with Unix/Linux concepts first. There are many informational sites out there :http://linux-tutorial.info/
Be prepared to spend a lot if time working "with" your OS to get things done. As you're on XP you won't notice the boot times. Your certainly not going to get near the 10 second boot times of Win 8.
If you enjoyed "working" with the nuances of an OS Linux can be fun and rewarding.
You will uncover issues with Linux Desktop and music production. All who try do. Its not a flavor thing it's a Unix thing but there are many ways to overcome these issues within a balance. It's rare that you can't find a config that's usable, but it will take time. Get prepared to spend the time.
Coming the other way, from Unix to Windows (too long ago) I would suggest that Windows is gonna do best what you want to do in the Music world, but I'm guessing there and not suggesting you shouldn't go on the adventure.
Nike!
-
As soon as I read commodorejohn's first post, I dismissed him, to put it mildly since I'm a moderator, as a ill-informed and .
I've been using Linux since 1992, dual boot with Windows, and then in '96 switched full-time to Linux. I've used many different distros to say the least. Each has their pros and cons, just like each version of Windows, except without the virus/malware problems. Its come such a long way since '92. Back then I had to dig around and fix dependencies on my own and any help came with a RTFM in irc chat days. Fast forward to today...
My dad runs Linux. He's not an IT guy. He just wants something that works. He ran Windows from Win 95 to Win 7. Well, he's been using Linux only for about 12 years. He's 76.
Myself, I run a crapload of different distros in VM machines and on my server rack here at my home office and also UNIX. I love it. My Acer s7 runs Debian.
For you, I would try Ubuntu or Linux Mint which is what my dad uses. Both Ubuntu and LM have nice package managers and have a plethora of software in their library. Virtually all retro system emulators are supported and run very well, even on a P4 like yours.
-
If you want to dual boot, get a partition manager to manage your partitions. The default partition manager won't let your resize primary partitions.
Virtual Box is quite advanced now. Use that to play around with Linux. Download the 32-bit Linux for Windows XP.
Problems I've had:
The setting of the hard drive to AHCI or IDE is important.
Another problem I had was during the install Linux would set to the max graphics resolution and stop installing.
My 3G modem causes a crash. That would be buggy drivers.
-
I can only impart my experience here and nothing more, but maybe it will provide some guidance for you.
I stepped away from my Amiga and computers in general back in 98 thinking computers won't be as fun as they used to be(I was wrong on this point, but didn't realize until recently). I picked it back up in 03 and have been running XP then 7. They did what I needed them to do, minor music production and duplication, very few games, web browsing, iTunes, and Office work.
About 2 years ago I wanted to try something a little safer for my family in regards to security, privacy, and stability. I ultimately moved to Linux Mint LXDE/Mate for everyone after trying several "distros". It provides a platform for music production with Ardour and Audacity; it has multiple options for CD and DVD duplication; I use my Playstation or 1200 for games now ;) even though Neverwinter Nights is an awesome RPG with a native Linux client; Libre Office does everything I used MS Office for, and Firefox seems to be updated weekly. I haven't tried to figure out an iTunes replacement yet but it's not a high priority for me at this point.
I have had mixed results but a lot has to do with the learning curve on my part. Fortunately, there is a ton of documentation on the net, support is there for those who can search forums, go on youtube for tutorials, etc.
Getting the desktop running with pre-installed software is cake and getting additional software not included is just as easy. I never had anything "break" until I really started messing with things in attempts to learn and I wasn't really knowledgeable as to what I was doing. I know better now.:) but that's part of the "fun" so to say (at least for me)
One thing that I have realized is that I feel a little excited again. Almost like when I first started using the Amiga. I have even started a new partition for Linux from Scratch and have started reading up on C+. There are fun hacks out there, different ways to implement the OS, different desktops, options in general are varied. Mint itself is fast, works on older hardware, and has a great support and development team.
Me personally, I like using Linux and use it everyday. It is different in some ways and will take some time to learn, but once you do, it affords you a well supported alternative.
If you want to dual boot, this is an option as is the USB stick. There are also "live" cds, but these provide a generally poor experience due to the nature of system access. If you don't want to mess with your hard drive yet, go with the USB stick.
Flame on
-
As soon as I read commodorejohn's first post, I dismissed him, to put it mildly since I'm a moderator, as a ill-informed and .
Aww, you do care!
Each has their pros and cons, just like each version of Windows, except without the virus/malware problems.
...and with a mass of terrible UI and configuration/dependency issues that occur at random, so it's at best a lateral move.
Its come such a long way since '92. Back then I had to dig around and fix dependencies on my own and any help came with a RTFM in irc chat days. Fast forward to today...
...where that's still entirely the case if you attempt to do anything other than install pre-configured software from the repository, and occasionally even then, and the cat-calls of "RTFM noob!" are as strong as ever...
-
As soon as I read commodorejohn's first post, I dismissed him, to put it mildly since I'm a moderator, as a ill-informed and .
I've been using Linux since 1992, dual boot with Windows, and then in '96 switched full-time to Linux. I've used many different distros to say the least. Each has their pros and cons, just like each version of Windows, except without the virus/malware problems. Its come such a long way since '92. Back then I had to dig around and fix dependencies on my own and any help came with a RTFM in irc chat days. Fast forward to today...
My dad runs Linux. He's not an IT guy. He just wants something that works. He ran Windows from Win 95 to Win 7. Well, he's been using Linux only for about 12 years. He's 76.
Myself, I run a crapload of different distros in VM machines and on my server rack here at my home office and also UNIX. I love it. My Acer s7 runs Debian.
For you, I would try Ubuntu or Linux Mint which is what my dad uses. Both Ubuntu and LM have nice package managers and have a plethora of software in their library. Virtually all retro system emulators are supported and run very well, even on a P4 like yours.
I'm glad that you had a positive experience, but many, many people have an entirely different experience-. Look here:http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=327&
The thing is thats its often simple stuff that should not be an issue by now but it is. A dodgy CD driver can boot you into a shell and you end up not having a clue why. Off to the forums and watch as your spare time crosses the Linux event horizon as you try and track the error down.
Maybe it helps that you have 20 years experience.
And Libre Office is a problem when you have to use Powerpoint collaboratively and the formatting gets screwed up every time you open someone else's file, as my partner is going through right now!
To the OP, test it out first off a Live CD or in a virtual machine *in Windows*, not the other way around.
My verdict is that it was a tragedy that Microsoft stifled innovation in computing. It was an equal tragedy that open source chose Linux to waste millions of man-power hours on.
-
@stefcep2
As many negatives, I can find 5x the amount of users with a positive experience. YMMV.
Libre office is not a Linux problem. Direct that to the correct dev team and not towards Linux.
Your link doesn't work. Fix it, I'm interested in reading it. Some people don't have the aptitude or willingness to learn something new and stick with the simplest, no matter how archaic.
-
Aww, you do care!
Well you are an Amiga user and so far you haven't pissed me off, so, yes I care somewhat. LOL
...and with a mass of terrible UI and configuration/dependency issues that occur at random, so it's at best a lateral move.
Really? That's definitely incorrect. The only somewhat difficult UI issues I've read or seen is when users try to install a different window manager like Enlightenment or whatever isn't a default wm like Gnome 2/3 etc.
...where that's still entirely the case if you attempt to do anything other than install pre-configured software from the repository, and occasionally even then, and the cat-calls of "RTFM noob!" are as strong as ever...
Yea that chaps my damn hide about those rtfm comments. Sometimes they are warranted since google does provide much help or even searching said distros forum can provide answers.
-
@stefcep2
As many negatives, I can find 5x the amount of users with a positive experience. YMMV.
Anectodally? Its still poor if 1 in 5 are not happy.
Libre office is not a Linux problem. Direct that to the correct dev team and not towards Linux.
No-one runs operating systems, they run applications. Its a core app that runs on the Linux platform. It matters.
Your link doesn't work. Fix it, I'm interested in reading it.
Works here in Chrome on Win 7. Its just the Ubuntu forums, which are just as busy as I remember them. Clearly it doesn't "just work" for a lot of people out there.
Some people don't have the aptitude or willingness to learn something new and stick with the simplest, no matter how archaic.
That sounds suspiciously like blaming the user for the platform's shortcomings. I remember it well.
I was very open to Linux in 2007. I tried PCLOS, Ubuntu (Gnome and KDE offshoots), Mandriva, Suse. Not ONE "just worked". And all I had was an AMD X2 with motherboard everything.
The worst were the rolling upgrade OS's-I lost count the number of times I'd shut down for the night, and in the morning...end up being thrown in a CLI because some %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!ty small update caused some conflict somewhere.
How do I fix it? Oh lucky i dual booted with XP to get online to work it out, WHEN it was possible to do so. Thats right if you go Linux, keep a Windows machine handy-you'll need it.
I cut my losses in 2011, about the time Ubuntu went to Unity and dropped support of the version I was running.
The OP needs to hear the good and the bad- and no its not the user's fault either.
-
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
6. Any complications or pitfalls I need to watch out for on a dual boot system?
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
Read a guide on how to recover the Windows MBR from DOS.
Wine is quite buggy. I have never gotten it to work for games, it did work for MS Office.
I'm getting use to Virtual Box. It took me two days to get a DOS 6.22 install working properly, but it was worth it.
-
Libre office is not a Linux problem. Direct that to the correct dev team and not towards Linux.
A modified form of the "It's Just A Kernel!" argument, which, as ever, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not it's "part of Linux," it's what Linux users are stuck with. Even if LibreOffice isn't part of Linux per se, it's one of the only alternatives Linux users have to MS Office, and the one most frequently put forward by the Linux community, and it does not cut the mustard - just like the GIMP, just like tons of other shoddily-designed Linux software that the Linux developer community has gotten to a point of "basically feature-complete" and then dropped in the laps of prospective users, because they know Linux needs to have it to draw in users but they don't think it needs to be good, because in the world of Linux the users exist for the benefit of the OS and not the other way around.
Your link doesn't work. Fix it, I'm interested in reading it. Some people don't have the aptitude or willingness to learn something new and stick with the simplest, no matter how archaic.
Or, alternatively, some people don't have any patience for putting up with pointless bullshít when there's other alternatives out there that don't demand that of them.
Really? That's definitely incorrect. The only somewhat difficult UI issues I've read or seen is when users try to install a different window manager like Enlightenment or whatever isn't a default wm like Gnome 2/3 etc.
If you haven't seen people having serious issues with Linux, you haven't looked. There are plenty of widely-recognized issues with Linux UI, and they all spring from the same ultimate source: 1. XWindows only handles low-level drawing. 2. Since XWindows only handles low-level drawing, toolkits have to be developed to display UI components and handle user interaction with them. 3. Anytime toolkits have to be developed, the Linux developer community will come up with at least three mutually-incompatible toolkits to accomplish the exact same thing. 4. Since there are at least three toolkits that do the same thing, the odds of any two applications using the same toolkit are no better than 33%. 5. Since the problem encompasses not merely two applications, but dozens or hundreds, since many other aspects of UI rely not on the toolkit, but on the programmer, and since most programmers don't actually care about UI at all except in that it gets people to use the cool backend code they wrote, 6. basically nothing behaves consistently with anything else. Except when you use one of the overblown multi-application suites developed to address this, in which case there's still plenty of bad design decisions and you lose the consistency anyway when you inevitably need an application that isn't part of the suite.
You can argue all you like that you don't notice this, but that won't change the fact that it's an issue for people who haven't spent twenty years forcibly acclimating themselves to bad UI.
-
So far no votes for Solaris? Doesn't anybody use that big ball of joy anymore? Tried it, even wrote a paper about it for school many years back. They actually had a list of hardware it would work on, and if you didn't get a system off that list you were SOL, lol. :rtfm:
I think the best thing to come out of Solaris was ZFS.
-
As soon as I read commodorejohn's first post, I dismissed him, to put it mildly since I'm a moderator, as a ill-informed and .
.
But then as a forum moderator you realised everyone's opinion was just as important and that the choice to dismiss is a personal one, not public. Least your own view be dismissed in the same vain.
That would be terrible yes?
My view is people use and validate there OS usage based on their aims; Some people want to just run their stuff. Some people want to tinker / customize. Then there's a spectrum around and between those poles.
I understand exactly where commodore john is coming from.
If you choose Linux and want to do music you're gonna be tinkering quite a bit.
That of course can be fun and rewarding.
-
@commodorejohn have you forgotten what happened last time you started bashing Linux in a thread like this. I think you are entitled to your own opinions but your ugly head seems to rear itself at the very mention of Linux.
Quite frankly I don't know how you managed to have such bad experiences! Your comments may have had some merit 10 years ago. We have heard them all before. Please can you try and tone it down or bite your lips?
The original post has made a decision to try a new OS and was asking for tips. Not to hear the bitter ramblings from the king of Linux hate "commodorejohn"
-
@commodorejohn have you forgotten what happened last time you started bashing Linux in a thread like this. I think you are entitled to your own opinions but your ugly head seems to rear itself at the very mention of Linux.
Quite frankly I don't know how you managed to have such bad experiences! Your comments may have had some merit 10 years ago. We have heard them all before. Please can you try and tone it down or bite your lips?
The original post has made a decision to try a new OS and was asking for tips. Not to hear the bitter ramblings from the king of Linux hate "commodorejohn"
-
Works here in Chrome on Win 7. Its just the Ubuntu forums, which are just as busy as I remember them. Clearly it doesn't "just work" for a lot of people out there.
Oh, then in that case, it works. Thought you were sending me a specific thread. http://www.sevenforums.com ...you'll find plenty of Windows issues and thats just one forum. Windows is riddled with problems. Not all OS's are perfect, yet I have yet to have issues with Linux.
That sounds suspiciously like blaming the user for the platform's shortcomings. I remember it well.
"Man this truck is kinda loud on the road, I can hear the tires. Its probably the tread. Ok, the truck sucks. Its the tires but I hate the truck. I'm selling it. No, not replacing tires. I'm done with it." Everyone deals with issues their own way.
I was very open to Linux in 2007. I tried PCLOS, Ubuntu (Gnome and KDE offshoots), Mandriva, Suse. Not ONE "just worked". And all I had was an AMD X2 with motherboard everything.
What was that? 2007? Oh ok. I thought we were talking about something recent.
The worst were the rolling upgrade OS's-I lost count the number of times I'd shut down for the night, and in the morning...end up being thrown in a CLI because some %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!ty small update caused some conflict somewhere.
Strange because my dad, myself and people I know who use Linux have *never* had anything like that happen. My dad has had completely different machines every 3 years or so because I just like buying better systems. No issues. Dunno why you had yours.
The OP needs to hear the good and the bad- and no its not the user's fault either.
I agree. But I disagree when people start bring back issues from 1990 or because of their own shortcomings or issues they created themselves which caused the problems in the first place.
-
So far no votes for Solaris? Doesn't anybody use that big ball of joy anymore? Tried it, even wrote a paper about it for school many years back. They actually had a list of hardware it would work on, and if you didn't get a system off that list you were SOL, lol. :rtfm:
I think the best thing to come out of Solaris was ZFS.
HA! I manage 40 servers with Solaris running on it, migrating some sun boxen to T4's as we speak. I have some VM sessions with Sol running for testing my scripts and ideas to implement at work and my backup NAS at home runs Solaris. Absolutely love Solaris and ZFS. BRING IT ON! LOL!!!
-
But then as a forum moderator you realised everyone's opinion was just as important and that the choice to dismiss is a personal one, not public. Least your own view be dismissed in the same vain.
That would be terrible yes?
If I dismiss someone because they are ill informed, of course, its in my eyes only but I'm sure I'm not the only one. If someone were to think that of my posts, its fine with me. We dont have to agree. We are all entitled to our own opinions, regardless of how ill informed they are. I'm just adding the correct spin on it when it seems as though anything new other than Amiga and Windows gets bashed by users who havent left their pigeon hole. Reminds me of the days when this new OS that had some sort of blue butterfly representing it, was released..cut my legs off and call me shorty..those were some big time bashing days. I forget which OS it was..probably faded into obscurity. :-)
My view is people use and validate there OS usage based on their aims; Some people want to just run their stuff. Some people want to tinker / customize. Then there's a spectrum around and between those poles.
I understand exactly where commodore john is coming from.
If you choose Linux and want to do music you're gonna be tinkering quite a bit.
That of course can be fun and rewarding.
I understood where he was coming from...in 1992. Maybe I'll go fire up the 'ol DeLorean and head back to the '90s, read his posts and then fully understand.
-
A modified form of the "It's Just A Kernel!" argument ...
Ok. Then Linux isnt for *you* specifically. Thats fine. Just dont ruin other peoples enjoyment of trying something different because of your personal shortcomings.
-
I use Ubuntu; I believe it's the easiest Linux distro for desktop use. I also hear great things about Mint.
For those unsure about replacement applications:-
Graphics: Gimp (similar to Photoshop) - http://www.gimp.org
Photography: Darktable (similar/better? than Adobe LightRoom, RAW image editing) - http://www.darktable.org
Music Production: Bitwig Studio (made by Ableton devs) - https://www.bitwig.com
Video Editing: OpenShot (similar to Vegas etc) - http://www.openshot.org
3D Modelling: Blender (similar to Lightwave etc) - http://www.blender.org
People used to say they'd use linux "when all their applications were available for it" - whereas nowadays I'm regularly hearing the reverse. Linux has the better apps and people are requesting ports *to* windows (the OpenShot Kickstarter was met partly to fund this).
Sure, if all you care about is MS Office then by all means stick with Windows. But, to dismiss the creative tools available under Linux is crazy. It's enabling a *lot* of people access to professional quality software at zero cost.
If you have any doubt about the quality of such software then check out some of the Blender videos:-
http://archive.blender.org/features-gallery/movies/index.html
Can you imagine having access to such free software 10 or 20 years ago?
Really, I don't get the hate spewed here for Linux/GNU/Open Source.
-
Use LUBUNTU: it has the same software base that "mainline" UBUNTU, but it's waaay lighter and has a small memory/cpu footprint.
Try LUBUNTU, you won't regret.
-
@commodorejohn have you forgotten what happened last time you started bashing Linux in a thread like this.
Perhaps those complaints have some merit: http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html. Don't know if it's all true, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea for people to do some research into Linux problems if they want to switch.
-
Having used many distributions of Linux over the years, including completely build your own varieties such as Gentoo, I would personally say for a complete newbie either Ubuntu or Mint (which uses Ubuntu as a base on one of its versions) are the best choices. Others will disagree on this while others will agree. The thing with Linux is there is so much variety within it that there is something for everyone pretty much.
One thing you may struggle with is WI-FI as some chipsets are supported within Linux natively. While lots of chipsets aren't and will either need stuff compiling, not good for newbies, or require odd workarounds using Windows drivers.
So for your questions
1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?
Lubuntu is going to the most compatible out of the Ubuntu flavours. If your feel adventurous then maybe look into something like Puppy Linux. I had this running on a crappy netbook with very little effort.
2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?
Live distributions, that is a version that runs off CDs, DVDs or USB sticks, is a good way to go. Most distributions come with Live variations and are a great demo of how things work within the system. Just expect limitations and slow performance as it reads off things like CDs and DVDs. If you like it then generally it is a easy case of clicking on a icon and following some install instructions for the newbie friendly installers.
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
Make sure something like GRUB installs, generally it does automatically. So long as you don't mess too much with the installer, going for custom installs, it should pickup windows fine and setup a dual boot environment.
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
Most installers come with a partitioning tool. However if it doesn't then you can use any partition tool, even within windows, to slice up the drive and get it ready for Linux. Before you start I would recommend watching videos and reading guides because if you do it wrong you will kill the Windows partition and lose all your data.
6. Any complications or pitfalls I need to watch out for on a dual boot system?
When it comes to getting rid of Linux, if you feel you don't want it any more, then it is a pain to do. So before you decide you want Linux then try, try, try and try it more using live media and even using virtual machines.
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
Anything for Linux will run on any Linux flavour. The package installers vary depending on distribution, commands and such. But generally the package managers have pretty comprehensive repositories of software. Updates filter through flavours pretty quickly. If you want something that is not in them you can do a manual compile. This is a bit tricky but doable.
Windows stuff however won't work without something like Wine. But this has it's own pitfalls and not all Windows software will work. But if your mainly using XP stuff then it shouldn't have too many issues with basic stuff.
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
Wine is not perfect. Don't let people tell you otherwise. It's getting better but some stuff simply either wont work or will be buggy. If you rely on Windows software then keep the Partition.
-
Perhaps those complaints have some merit: http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html. Don't know if it's all true, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea for people to do some research into Linux problems if they want to switch.
If half that was true, my parents (+60 years old), my girlfriend (who is a chemistry student without deep computing knowledge) and most of my friends wouldn't be using GNU/Linux on a daily basis. And they do, with no problems whatsoever.
They produce technical documents, watch videos on youtube, watch downloaded films and series in a perfect smooth way, surf the internet, etc... and they don't need my technical assistance at all once the system is installed.
What's more: they daily have a nice, responsive desktop computing experience, whereas their computers struggled to do anything back in 2009 when they where using Windows Vista instead, before I moved back to my small town and started installing Lubuntu/Debian everywhere.
You can't start to imagine how much quality their computing has earned through using a proper OS like a good GNU/Linux distro.
-
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
Anything for Linux will run on any Linux flavour. The package installers vary depending on distribution, commands and such. But generally the package managers have pretty comprehensive repositories of software. Updates filter through flavours pretty quickly. If you want something that is not in them you can do a manual compile. This is a bit tricky but doable.
In fairness to the question you answered, I think it should be stated that pre-compiled binaries on on different architectures will not work when crossing over other Linux distributions. Debian vs Ubuntu vs. Arch vs. Puppy etc. I think that this should be spelled out for some as I didn't know this when I switched over. I am not trolling here at all, I think he should know that initially. The last bit you mention is part of the reason I wanted to learn C as compiling in Linux can be important at times if you want something arch specific. To your point though, most software is compiled for different architectures already in the repositories.
@TCMSCP - TY for Bitwig! I never heard of it and it looks well polished as a Linux DAW.
-
In fairness to the question you answered, I think it should be stated that pre-compiled binaries on on different architectures will not work when crossing over other Linux distributions. Debian vs Ubuntu vs. Arch vs. Puppy etc. I think that this should be spelled out for some as I didn't know this when I switched over. I am not trolling here at all, I think he should know that initially. The last bit you mention is part of the reason I wanted to learn C as compiling in Linux can be important at times if you want something arch specific. To your point though, most software is compiled for different architectures already in the repositories.
@TCMSCP - TY for Bitwig! I never heard of it and it looks well polished as a Linux DAW.
Yup i would agree and accept that correction. Jumping between different base systems, debian to gentoo for example, you will find differences in how packages are handled and subtle changes, which do have effects on software, in how things are compiled. But as a general rule all software written for Linux will work no matter the system with some tweaking.
But to ballance it out. If the op picks a distro and sticks with it then there should be no issue. Or if they go from debian to Ubuntu to mint.
-
From my personal experience of the main Linux distros, when they work fine and everything goes smoothly they are great, when you run into problems though Linux can be a bastard to fix. Most of the problem solving advice still tends to be dropping into the Terminal and editing obscure config files.
Providing everything works out of the box though, you're in luck. I almost put my fist through the wall spending almost an entire weekend trying to get an unsupported Wireless card to work with NDISWrapper and a problem with enhanced graphic drivers a while back.
For the basic day-to-day tasks most users do (web, email, facebook, youtube) Linux is great, in fact I put in on my brother's laptop as he had a habit of ending up with malware every few days (80 trojans on his Win 7 machine on last count was enough for me to replace it with Linux Mint).
It does lack applications which I need for work though which is why I keep Windows and OS X around for apps like the Adobe Suite, Pro Tools/Logic, and decent video editing software, but for general use Linux can be fine.
-
The thing is thats its often simple stuff that should not be an issue by now but it is. A dodgy CD driver can boot you into a shell and you end up not having a clue why. Off to the forums and watch as your spare time crosses the Linux event horizon as you try and track the error down.
This is totally my experience, when everything is sailing along fine and working it's great, as soon as something breaks though, there you are in the depths of Bash and text editors editing all these obscure files and typing unintuitive Unix commands.
-
Anectodally? Its still poor if 1 in 5 are not happy.
It's 1 in 6. And while these numbers are completely made up of course, 1 in 6 would still be a major improvement over Windows.
No-one runs operating systems, they run applications. Its a core app that runs on the Linux platform. It matters.
"Windows is a pile of crap because of all the malware"
"Windows sucks because it has Origin, Uplay and all that DRM crap"
Blaming Linux for any alleged problems in LibreOffice is stupid for several reasons. For once, nobody's forcing you to run LibreOffice: there are various commercial alternatives, like Kingsoft Office and Softmaker Office. You can even run MS Office under Wine, if you really have to.
And if you "have to use Powerpoint collaboratively" - maybe, just maybe that's not the most fair test case for LibreOffice? I know it's a common complaint, but if you're expecting LibreOffice to be a 100% compatible drop-in replacement to MS Office, you (a) don't have a clue about Microsoft's history apparently and (b) look like you are just making up excuses for bashing LibreOffice. If your employer wants you to use Powerpoint collaboratively, that's what you use, obviously. I'm not blaming British car manufacturers for mounting the wheel on the wrong side of the car - I simply don't buy British cars for use on German streets (Yay, a car analogy!)
I was very open to Linux in 2007.
I tried Windows in 1987, and I was very open to it. I can tell you from personal experience that Windows is a total pile of crap.
Btw., what's the Windows version that was current in 2007? Vista? Enough said.
In 2007, Ubuntu was less than a year old - give it a try now. I'm not using it myself, but I usually install it for people who are sick of Windows or want to try Linux for some reason. I didn't get any complaints so far.
small update caused some conflict somewhere.
There are problems like that, with any OS. I never encountered one of them myself, and from what I see in the forums, not many other people do. You do have to keep an eye on what hardware you use, of course. Drivers usually take a short while to arrive/mature after a new product is released.
I actually think the rock solid and idiot proof software update mechanisms on Linux - that keep all of your software up-to-date automatically - are one of the best things about Linux.
How do I fix it? Oh lucky i dual booted with XP to get online to work it out
[...]
Thats right if you go Linux, keep a Windows machine handy-you'll need it.
Erm... these days you simply boot from a Linux Live DVD or a USB stick. The same Linux Live DVD a Windows user would have to use in a similar scenario, btw. (due to lack of Windows Live DVDs).
The OP needs to hear the good and the bad- and no its not the user's fault either.
"The bad" being "it totally destroyed my machine in 2003"? That's not going to help much, since he has no clue if he's going to encounter hardware issues with his setup - booting a live DVD should give him a clue, and he might want to list his hardware here so people can point out potential troublemakers (there aren't many left in 2014).
For anything else, the sane approach would be to install Linux in a virtual machine - provided his hardware is up to the task.
I'm not saying Linux doesn't have its problems. But having Windows users (of all people) complain about "terrible UI issues" or "random dependency problems" is pure comedy.
-
I was thinking of trying the Aros/Linux hybrid Aeros. Does anyone have any experience with that? It seems a bit fiddly to install though.
-
I was thinking of trying the Aros/Linux hybrid Aeros. Does anyone have any experience with that? It seems a bit fiddly to install though.
dunno..but there is a thread out there somewhere that you can reply to. I think I replied to it myself*...being that this is a Linux only thread.
EDIT: nvm..I replied to Icaros thread..but you can spin off a new thread.
-
@commodorejohn have you forgotten what happened last time you started bashing Linux in a thread like this. I think you are entitled to your own opinions but your ugly head seems to rear itself at the very mention of Linux.
I'll rear my "ugly head" any damn place it's relevant, thankyou. And given that ral-clan is a Windows user curious about the Linux experience, and has specifically stated that he wants to hear opinions from all sides, it's certainly relevant here.
Quite frankly I don't know how you managed to have such bad experiences! Your comments may have had some merit 10 years ago. We have heard them all before. Please can you try and tone it down or bite your lips?
Ten years my ass, these issues were as bad as ever as recently as November 2011, when I finally threw up my hands after some seven years of periodic migration attempts and gave up on Linux altogether. As for "toning it down," this is the toned-down version. What you really want is for me to not say anything bad about Linux at all.
And once again, a Linux advocate thinks that "well I haven't noticed any problems, so I don't see how anybody else could take issue!" is a meaningful argument...
The original post has made a decision to try a new OS and was asking for tips. Not to hear the bitter ramblings from the king of Linux hate "commodorejohn"
I'm trying to save a fellow forum member the time and headache I experienced in basically the same situation. I don't really give two shíts what you think about it.
-
Strange because my dad, myself and people I know who use Linux have *never* had anything like that happen. My dad has had completely different machines every 3 years or so because I just like buying better systems. No issues. Dunno why you had yours.
I agree. But I disagree when people start bring back issues from 1990 or because of their own shortcomings or issues they created themselves which caused the problems in the first place.
And once again, the "I don't notice any problems, therefore the problems that you experience can't possibly exist or must somehow be your fault!" argument...
I'm just adding the correct spin on it when it seems as though anything new other than Amiga and Windows gets bashed by users who havent left their pigeon hole.
This is absolute horseshít and you know it. Tons of people here embrace possibilities other than Amiga and Windows; there's a bunch of OSX users, there's RiscOS devotees, and I myself have already mentioned that I like where Haiku's going. What you mean by "anything new gets bashed" is "people say bad things about Linux, and I don't like that." That's enough of a non-argument as it is, but you could at least own up to it.
Ok. Then Linux isnt for *you* specifically. Thats fine. Just dont ruin other peoples enjoyment of trying something different because of your personal shortcomings.
If people have their enjoyment ruined simply because someone on the Internet is saying mean things about something they like, they need to grow a thicker skin. And in this case, that's just you and polyp2000; ral-clan himself has specifically said that he wants to hear all views on the issue.
If you have any doubt about the quality of such software then check out some of the Blender videos:-
Check out the Blender interface - it's designed for space aliens, by space aliens. The technical underpinnings may be excellent, but they're accessible only via a poorly-designed UI, which is a lot of Linux software in a nutshell.
-
I'm trying to save a fellow forum member the time and headache I experienced in basically the same situation. I don't really give two shíts what you think about it.
So you dont even want him to try it. Just want him to give up. Momma raised a quitter, huh?
If people have their enjoyment ruined simply because someone on the Internet is saying mean things about something they like, they need to grow a thicker skin.
After those two posts, I can surmise you're just a troll doing trolly things. Not trying to actually post any LOGIC and REAL reason as to the pros and cons of linux..just trolling thru AO because of your lack of abilities at learning new things. No problem. I was wrong and thought you had something constructive to say, but after wasting a few minutes of my time and reading your drivel, all you do is resort to cursing and crying when someone says Linux is great.
And once again, the "I don't notice any problems, therefore the problems that you experience can't possibly exist or must somehow be your fault!" argument...
And once again, the "I have problems, therefore the problems that I experience must somehow be Linux fault!" argument...
^^^^ See what I did there?
Check out the Blender interface - it's designed for space aliens, by space aliens. The technical underpinnings may be excellent, but they're accessible only via a poorly-designed UI, which is a lot of Linux software in a nutshell.
VIP/Donor needs to be edited to Troll.
-
Ten years my ass, these issues were as bad as ever as recently as November 2011, when I finally threw up my hands after some seven years of periodic migration attempts and gave up on Linux altogether.
I'm sorry. It just sounds to me like you don't know what you're doing. I've had zero problems installing the latest version of Ubuntu even on 10-year-old Pentium 4 Dell Dimensions that people were throwing away. Good luck to the OP, I trust they won't have nearly so many issues as you claim to have had. I know things can be frustrating, but if they approach it in a less negative manner they'll be more likely to receive any help and support they need. Have a good day!
-
My reason to avoid Windows: $150 to have 15GB of my hard drive taken up by who knows what.
Linux: an OS that is not intrusive.
Half the Linux software you download is buggy unfinished etc. but there is plenty that works great.
-
So you dont even want him to try it. Just want him to give up. Momma raised a quitter, huh?
You're such a charmer, you are. Of course I'm not telling him he can't, I just think that, as he's coming from a similar place as I was with similar goals, in my experience he'd be better off not bothering.
After those two posts, I can surmise you're just a troll doing trolly things. Not trying to actually post any LOGIC and REAL reason as to the pros and cons of linux..just trolling thru AO because of your lack of abilities at learning new things. No problem. I was wrong and thought you had something constructive to say, but after wasting a few minutes of my time and reading your drivel, all you do is resort to cursing and crying when someone says Linux is great.
Not trying to post any real reasons like when I laid out the hows and whys of why Linux UI is terrible? Right.
When in doubt, whine "well you're just a troll!" That's the law of the Internet, boys and girls.
(And maybe throw in a cry of "also you're dumb for not wanting to learn how to live with badly-designed software!" while you're at it. Despite the fact that I spent some seven years trying to do exactly that.)
And once again, the "I have problems, therefore the problems that I experience must somehow be Linux fault!" argument...
^^^^ See what I did there?
Yes, you blamed the user because you're so protective of a piece of software that you want to protect it from any criticism at all, just like every other Linux zealot on the Internet.
-
Actually, this is a pretty polarized discussion.
I don't think John is trolling.
I myself keep Windows around because its simply the easiest to use.
While I don't agree with John about the level of difficulty in using Linux, it IS a harder OS to maintain and when it crashes it gets ugly.
On the other hand, I've had Ubuntu around for the last several years and its really easy to install and works pretty well.
Sure, there's some lousy apps under Linux, but then again I've run into some real crap under Windows too.
-
You might want to try Ubuntu Studio. It has a lot of audio applications.
http://ubuntustudio.org/
In Fedora it is called a spin
http://fedoraproject.org/
http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora#spins
http://spins.fedoraproject.org/jam-kde/
Best wishes.
-
I am using OpenSuSe for five years now. Very easy to use and the actual version (13.1) looks great.
I am not missing Windows.
http://www.opensuse.org
-
I myself keep Windows around because its simply the easiest to use.
It isn't - it's simply the one you know better. How much Windows experience do you have, and how much Linux/Unix experience?
I often struggle with Windows, simply because I'm not used to it as much as I'm used to Linux.
it IS a harder OS to maintain and when it crashes it gets ugly.
How is Linux "hard to maintain"? Once you get it running, it mostly maintains itself.
But I agree that if you do run into problems, it gets a little hairy - but a bit of research on the net usually delivers a solution. And again: Windows problems often require changes in the registry and similar low-level interaction with the system. That fits my definition of "ugly" aswell ;-)
On the other hand, I've had Ubuntu around for the last several years and its really easy to install and works pretty well.
I think it comes down to:
1. do you have hardware that's not properly supported?
2. are you messing with the system without really knowing what you're doing?
Many Windows users trying out Linux seem to struggle with the second one. E.g. they're used to always having the latest version of Firefox and Thunderbird on their system, while their distribution stays with one major version for months and only delivers security and bugfix updates in the mean time.
The former Windows user wants to change that, so he starts googling for a solution, adding repositories to the package manager or downloading and installing packages without having a clue what he's doing and what problems that may cause.
If your hardware is supported and you stick with the package manager for installing software, you're in operating system heaven AFAIC.
-
Hi guys,
This discussion is very interesting and informative.
I'm posting this message from a Livd CD of Lubuntu right now. At first brush - a very first brush as I've only had it going for five minutes - I'm impressed!
-
This is totally my experience, when everything is sailing along fine and working it's great, as soon as something breaks though, there you are in the depths of Bash and text editors editing all these obscure files and typing unintuitive Unix commands.
For Windows the way to fix things is by reinstalling the OS. For Linux I never had to reinstall the OS just boot into rescue CD to fix a configuration I borked myself.
I have here a Windows XP partition I can't boot any more, even in fail safe. All I did was play with some BIOS settings and juggling some hardware. An OS should be able to withstand such things IMO. Didn't bother to reinstall the OS and just kept Linux.
I find it interesting to note that the zealots now seem to be in the Windows camp. The Linux users just talking about their own positive experience and willing to answer questions but not pushy to try to convince people to use Linux. I agree times have been different but Linux seem to becoming mainstream.
-
I have here a Windows XP partition I can't boot any more, even in fail safe. All I did was play with some BIOS settings and juggling some hardware. An OS should be able to withstand such things IMO. Didn't bother to reinstall the OS and just kept Linux.
FYI I've seen this problem before. If the drive controller is set in IDE or ATA mode when the OS is installed, a reduced subset of drivers is loaded along with the OS. This affects Windows XP, 7, and probably 8 as well. If you then change the drive settings in the BIOS to AHCI (or RAID) the system will refuse to boot. Blue screen every time. Trick is to set it back to original, install the AHCI drivers, then flip the switch in the BIOS again.
Other than that there's not really much you can screw up in the BIOS that would only affect Windows. Good luck, or just forget the Windows partition, lol. ;)
-
Oh, then in that case, it works. Thought you were sending me a specific thread. http://www.sevenforums.com ...you'll find plenty of Windows issues and thats just one forum. Windows is riddled with problems. Not all OS's are perfect, yet I have yet to have issues with Linux.
I could say the same about my XP installation. Still running the original install. 10 years later.
"Man this truck is kinda loud on the road, I can hear the tires. Its probably the tread. Ok, the truck sucks. Its the tires but I hate the truck. I'm selling it. No, not replacing tires. I'm done with it." Everyone deals with issues their own way.
Y'see that's the ATTITUDE I'm talking about.
Linux *Users* are generally very helpful and polite.
But the self-proclaimed gurus with 20 years plus experience or, worse, the maintainers of a distro.
User: "this is a fault".
Maintainer: "No, you're the fault. If you don't like it, the source is there, fix it yourself".
What was that? 2007? Oh ok. I thought we were talking about something recent.
Oh yes in 2007 Linux was up against Vista and was gonna take over the world. PFFT.
Anyway, I stayed till 2011 or 2012, when In finally wiped my drive clean of it. Around the time of the Unity fiasco. Recent enough.
Strange because my dad, myself and people I know who use Linux have *never* had anything like that happen. My dad has had completely different machines every 3 years or so because I just like buying better systems. No issues. Dunno why you had yours.
Or more accurately the question should be why your dad *didn't* have issues like that. Find that out, bottle it and distribute with a GNU license.
I agree. But I disagree when people start bring back issues from 1990 or because of their own shortcomings or issues they created themselves which caused the problems in the first place.
Yes here we go again-blame the user. Its always the user.
-
I'm glad you got got Lubuntu downloaded and running!
I was trying to reply earlier with my 12 month on my lap (I should've known better) and say to look at some of the distributions on Distrowatch.com
Some are better than others at certain tasks. One person pointed out Ubuntu Studio. I think this is a good point to indicate that if you are looking for specific tasks like music production and video editing, Ubuntu Studio, or even better, AV Linux are good alternatives. They have optimized kernels for these tasks.
If you are looking for a business machine environment, Solaris or the latest Oracle with the security minded impenetrable kernel would be a good option.
So not only do different distributions use Linux as a kernel to a perticular user need/solution, the kernel itself can be modified to handle specific types of environments.
Distrowatch is where I was also exposed to Haiku which, at this rate, could be an OS contender if more software is developed for it :)
Remember, Have Fun!!
-
Great decision!
I don't know how your experience will be, but for me, I almost never looked back to Windows since starting using Ubuntu/Open Suse a couple of years ago. Tried Windows 8 and Mac, and for me, they don't work. To limited in many ways.
Still saved a dual boot of Win 7 for rare occasions though. Have fun, and hope you'll like the Linuxworld. :)
-
Y'see that's the ATTITUDE I'm talking about.
Linux *Users* are generally very helpful and polite.
I merely gave you an example of the irrational thinking of some users, didnt see anything wrong with that.
But the self-proclaimed gurus with 20 years plus experience or, worse, the maintainers of a distro.
I'm not a guru, but I do know quite a bit about UNIX and Linux being that I am a Sys Admin and a Software Engineer for the company I work for and also I do the same on the side for my own company.
As a matter of fact, right here in my home office I have a few 1U servers... I have 1 NAS running FreeBSD, 1 backup NAS running Solaris 10 x86-64bit, 2 servers running CentOS Linux 6.5 (one runs some sites I host for a handful of companies, even my personal site and the other for my security system), 1 sandbox server running Solaris 10 (I wipe it and install whatever I need to test), 2 dual-quad core CentOS 6.5 Servers running GunsNet.net, AK-47.net and a spare dual-quad core for when I am going to virtualize 2 servers in the next few weeks.
But the self-proclaimed gurus with 20 years plus experience or, worse, the maintainers of a distro.
I'm not trying to convert ex-users into current users. Not my battle, not my problem. People have their own choice. I just want a level playing field for potential users. Throwing FUD and seeing what sticks isnt exactly level, so I help tilt it back in the right direction.
Or more accurately the question should be why your dad *didn't* have issues like that. Find that out, bottle it and distribute with a GNU license.
Well, he went from openSuSE to Linux Mint, only because of my personal disdain for Gnome 3. There's nothing to distribute and slap a GNU license on, its already freely available for all to enjoy.
Yes here we go again-blame the user. Its always the user.
I know, its always the OS.
-
Hi guys,
This discussion is very interesting and informative.
I'm posting this message from a Livd CD of Lubuntu right now. At first brush - a very first brush as I've only had it going for five minutes - I'm impressed!
dude..you did well. Kudos. Get used to running it, moving around in Linux. After a while, you'll start narrowing down what you want out of it then you'll custom tailor it to what you'd like. Its fun...I love it!
-
If half that was true, my parents (+60 years old), my girlfriend (who is a chemistry student without deep computing knowledge) and most of my friends wouldn't be using GNU/Linux on a daily basis. And they do, with no problems whatsoever.
They produce technical documents, watch videos on youtube, watch downloaded films and series in a perfect smooth way, surf the internet, etc... and they don't need my technical assistance at all once the system is installed.
What's more: they daily have a nice, responsive desktop computing experience, whereas their computers struggled to do anything back in 2009 when they where using Windows Vista instead, before I moved back to my small town and started installing Lubuntu/Debian everywhere.
You can't start to imagine how much quality their computing has earned through using a proper OS like a good GNU/Linux distro.
They were possibly using a Vista PC with tonnes of crapware, defrag on all the time, defender scanning all the time, system restore and the indexing always on. It helps if they had 2 MB RAM.
I have tweaked my dual XP/Vista install and i bet no-one would tell vista apart from Win 7 once it booted: most benchmark reviews I've seen put them neck and neck, even Vista ahead in some tests.
Other than boot time, I saw no performance gains in using Ubuntu on the same system. And no Direct X10.
-
They were possibly using a Vista PC with tonnes of crapware, defrag on all the time, defender scanning all the time, system restore and the indexing always on. It helps if they had 2 MB RAM.
OOOHHHH...so you're saying the UUUUSSERRRRR did that. Wait..no its not the USER.. remember? You just said that a few posts up when we were talking about LINUX. Hold on.. let me quote it.
Yes here we go again-blame the user. Its always the user.
Isnt that what you're implying in the first quote above? You're saying its the users fault, yet you yourself are trying to deflect blame in Linux to the OS itself.
I have tweaked my dual XP/Vista install and i bet no-one would tell vista apart from Win 7 once it booted: most benchmark reviews I've seen put them neck and neck, even Vista ahead in some tests.
Other than boot time, I saw no performance gains in using Ubuntu on the same system. And no Direct X10.
I dunno...my ultrabook boots up to full Debian in 12 seconds with no tuning done on my part. I guess thats fast.
-
I'm not trying to convert ex-users into current users. Not my battle, not my problem. People have their own choice. I just want a level playing field for potential users. Throwing FUD and seeing what sticks isnt exactly level, so I help tilt it back in the right direction.
I love how discussing real issues that we've experienced firsthand is "throwing FUD" and "tilting the playing field." Yeah, Linux would totally have a fair shot if people would just stop having problems with it!
-
I love how discussing real issues that we've experienced firsthand is "throwing FUD" and "tilting the playing field." Yeah, Linux would totally have a fair shot if people would just stop having problems with it!
When babelfish or google translate can convert trollspeak, I'll understand you better. Till then, its all greek to me.
-
They were possibly using a Vista PC with tonnes of crapware, defrag on all the time, defender scanning all the time, system restore and the indexing always on. It helps if they had 2 MB RAM.
I have tweaked my dual XP/Vista install and i bet no-one would tell vista apart from Win 7 once it booted: most benchmark reviews I've seen put them neck and neck, even Vista ahead in some tests.
Other than boot time, I saw no performance gains in using Ubuntu on the same system. And no Direct X10.
When Vista first came out, there were a lot of programs that wouldn't work. Software written just a few years earlier. By SP3 Vista is nearly identical to Win 7.
-
When babelfish or google translate can convert trollspeak, I'll understand you better. Till then, its all greek to me.
Classy, man.
[youtube]Cs4Gj7JsET4[/youtube]
-
OOOHHHH...so you're saying the UUUUSSERRRRR did that. Wait..no its not the USER.. remember? You just said that a few posts up when we were talking about LINUX. Hold on.. let me quote it.
Isnt that what you're implying in the first quote above? You're saying its the users fault, yet you yourself are trying to deflect blame in Linux to the OS itself.
Nope. Not at all.
I probably should have written "Vista comes with all those things on by default".
That was Microsoft's fault.
Same as having them making the default account in XP with administrator privileges which BTW is probably the most significant thing that they could have done to compromise security as soon as the user logged on.
Can't blame the user for not knowing what MS had done to a totally new OS.
I was that user myself- I wanted to take to my HP Mini-note with a hammer when I first turned it on with Vista Business SP1. Totally unusable, as it indexed, defragged, shadow-copied, ran defender scans ALL the fricken time.
The point is one google search, untick a handful of boxes, disable a service. DONE. No CLI, no archaic commands, no trawling through forums
I dunno...my ultrabook boots up to full Debian in 12 seconds with no tuning done on my part. I guess thats fast.
I don't have an SSD so I can't say.
-
For Windows the way to fix things is by reinstalling the OS. For Linux I never had to reinstall the OS just boot into rescue CD to fix a configuration I borked myself.
I have here a Windows XP partition I can't boot any more, even in fail safe. All I did was play with some BIOS settings and juggling some hardware. An OS should be able to withstand such things IMO. Didn't bother to reinstall the OS and just kept Linux.
I find it interesting to note that the zealots now seem to be in the Windows camp. The Linux users just talking about their own positive experience and willing to answer questions but not pushy to try to convince people to use Linux. I agree times have been different but Linux seem to becoming mainstream.
Thats one way to look at it.
Another is experienced computer users have tried Linux, experienced issues, and have laid those issues out in the open.
I seriously wish the Open Source folks didn't choose Linux to throw away countless man hours on. One of the worst decisions in computing history.
-
I seriously wish the Open Source folks didn't choose Linux to throw away countless man hours on. One of the worst decisions in computing history.
You sound like Hitler. One choice only.
-
You sound like Hitler. One choice only.
And now the mod who accuses people of trolling simply for disagreeing with him is the one who Godwins the thread. Magnifique.
-
@above
Do you actually get into the registry and start optimising things. Are we discussing the OS, or just the UI?
Amiga is pretty good on both counts.
Neither Linux or Windows is very friendly when you are hunting down errors. It is usually easier to uninstall drivers etc. and then reinstall them.
Eventually hobby OSes will get the offcuts (I mean drivers and software) from Linux anyway.
-
Hi,
@all,
Have been using linux since probably 94, today I use unbuntu 13.10, but have used ubuntu since version I believe 7.0 or before, can't actually remember when.
OK,
Have been testing various versions for the past 3 weeks, right now my choices are:
1. Zorin OS8, 64 bit, but may take it back to 32 bit, because a lot of games don't like the 64 bit, by games I mean windows games, have trouble with Farcry 2 in 64 bit mode, but in 32 bit mode no troubles. Right now I am playing Far Cry 2, Oblivion, and my favorite Half life. Zorin 8 has three different modes, Windows 7, Windows XP and Gnome. I am using the windows 7 features because that is what I am used to.
2 Ubuntu 13.10 Hey it is simple, but I like Zorin right now just because of the windows 7 look.Ubuntu is very light on memory use, Zorin is just a tad bit heavier. If you want to see just call up the terminal (like CLI) and type in top.
3. Lubuntu Ok, I am partial to Ubuntu OS's.
4. Going to try out Majaro today after getting some sleep.
By the way if you don't like my post on what I say about Linux, go to Youtube, and call up Spatry cup of linux. I watch this guy because he tries out all kinds of versions of everything. He even has the Commodore OS Vision (CUSA) on there.
One thing about Linux, lots of different versions to try, so you should be able to find one that suits your taste.
One of the easiest versions in Linux Mint 15 (been using that for the past couple of months, pretty cool, going to go after the new version Linux Mint 16 and try that.
One of the coolest ones is Knoppix. Would make an Amiga look like IBM Dos 1.0 in the eye candy seen, ut have a pretty good machine, it is really graphics intensive. If you have an old PC like Iggy, well I would stay with one of the light distros like lubuntu, I mean like you know trying to run anything on an old machine like Iggy has, well is hard, I mean 256k of memory, and is it an 8086, no couldn't be I think even Iggy has an 80286.
Anyhow, if you have a machine that can play Youtube, take a look at Spatry cup of Linux. He has probably over 400 reviews on Linux programs, and shows what they have on videos. Have a good day, and remember if you have a mini mac with Morphos you have the fastest booting machine in the world next to a C64, but the C64 has more useful programs and games.
Did you know the C64 holds the title for the fastest booting machine, if you don't believe it, just turn it on and the blue startup screen is right there.
have a great day
smerf
-
You sound like Hitler. One choice only.
No, but its interesting thats how you took it.
I didn't say there should be ONLY ONE choice-only that Linux was the WRONG choice for them to waste their time on.
The user experience is now everything- but in Linux that's an annoyance that developers grudgingly consider.
-
One other tip that helped me with Ubuntu:
Instead of downloading one of the "Live CD's", I'd download the mini-CD installer, or whatever it was called. The one that was only like a 20 megabyte CD .iso image. It would load up into an OS install routine that instead of loading drivers from the CD, would download everything over the Internet. Obviously takes longer than just installing off a disc, but it's the best way to make sure you get absolutely the latest drivers for your hardware. ;)
-
You sound like Hitler. One choice only.
Seriously?
-
All computer problems are USER error.... replace the USER.. no more computer problems :)
Az
-
Check out the Blender interface - it's designed for space aliens, by space aliens. The technical underpinnings may be excellent, but they're accessible only via a poorly-designed UI, which is a lot of Linux software in a nutshell.
Check out the current version, 2.70. The improvements that have been made since 2.49 (which is indeed a pig) are astronomical. Same for the 2.6 versions.
-
Heres a few tips from me regarding Linux.
Firstly I am making the assumption that you dont have any special requirements other than general usage.
1) Web Browsing - Just like Windows and OSX you have Chrome and Firefox available. Despite the fact that these pieces of software are open source the interfaces are great and are pretty much identical on all three platforms.
2) Office Software - Open Office, and Libre Office are available and for general usage are very capable. These are also free and available on Windows an OSX. The interface is pretty much the same across all three major operating systems. If you absolutely must have MSOffice . you have 3 choices
a) use the online version of office through the browser - your experience will be the same in any browser.
b) use the open source Virtual Box software and use windows & office that way. Virtual Box is a really awesome piece of software!
c) use wine - you wont be able to use the latest and greatest version of office but older versions will work just fine. You might want to consider using codeweavers / crossover office to make installation a breeze. Although distributions such as ubuntu include wine and it is possible to double click "setup.exe" just like in Windows you will probably get a more reliable experience using a wizard (like crossover or playonlinux)
In addition to these options which may be familiar to you there is also Caligra suite - this has a really sumptiuos look and feel!
4) Music Composition - Bitwig Studio (A brand new Ableton Live killer) , Renoise (Octamed Soundstudio on steroids , and then some!) . There are a ton of other interesting music compostion packages out there too . LMMS (like fruity loops), Traktion , EnergyXT , Rosegarden the list goes on.
5) Photo Manipulation - If you want to run photoshop your options are the same as 2) above! Commercial offerings include "Aftershot Pro" , "Pixel" , VueScan. There is also the free GIMP (interface can take time to get used to - there are plenty of online tutorials and is very powerful), Krita plus the multitude of online image editors.
6) 3D modeling - Many of the industry standard 3D modelling software is also available on linux such as Maya , Autodesk , Houdini , Realsoft 3D . There is also the free Blender (previously commercial software) which again has a tricky interface but after following a few of the online tutorials and learning the hot keys you will get to grips with it.
7) Vector editing -(Previously Commercial) Xara Extreme , Inkscape , Karbon14 - there are a ton more but these are the top 3
8) Watching Video - VLC you are probably already using this on windows or Mac but this software can play pretty much anything you can throw at it! In fact Linux has pretty much the most comprehensive set of tools for playing media than any other platform. from XBMC to Boxee (with home theatre interfaces) .
9) Listening to Music - Again there are many music players for linux ranging from the winamp like "Audacious" , to some really great offerings such as "Banshee" and "Amarok" . There is no iTunes, but lets face it iTunes has a terrible interface and there are much better alternatives on all 3 platforms.
10) Hardware support - While you will probably have more luck installing Ubuntu on a 5 year old PC , than Windows 8 its still a good idea to check hardware compatibility with linux before you purchase a PC or new components. You cant just assume that cheap inkjet from the store will work with linux , just the same as you couldnt make that assumption for OSX or Windows. As a general rule i tend to stick with all intel chipsets as these pretty much work out of the box. If I was building a desktop PC i would almost certainly go for NVidia over AMD for the GPU, although both now provide open source drivers and should work out of the box , the NVidia proprietary drivers are tops!
11) Gaming - No doubt about it this is Linux achillies heel. Windows is still trumps as far as this is concerned. However things are changing - unless you have been hiding somewhere you might already be aware that Valve have recently brought out the Linux based SteamOS , and vowed to port many of their games to Linux. They have really changed the playing field as a result . CryTek announced CRYENGINE is available for Linux and this looks like a trend set to continue.
12) Retro Gaming - UAE , MAME - most of the open source emulators you may already be using started out here so you can continue using them as you see fit!
So - its not all doom and gloom Linux has an exciting ecosystem and while its been a long time coming its gathering momentum as a commercial platform as well as a community one.
-
some useful software I've come across:
DeVeDe - use it to create DVD's with titles, background music, images out of .avi's, mpegs etc..
QTerm - I use to to connect to places like CottonwoodBBS via telnet, works great.
VirtualBox- create virtual machines to test various other operating systems before actually installing on a real machine.
K3B- burn stuff to cd/dvd, if its not standard with your distro, you can always install it via *Ubuntu's software manager
Mondo- very damn useful. I use it to back up my servers to get a full image put on .iso's. Something goes wrong..boot disk 1 of iso's and restore the entire server from backup. Works with desktops, laptops, same concept.
KTorrent- if you download stuff via torrents, this is a great program also. Easy to use/setup.
E-UAE- Amiga emulator w/GUI interface
fs-uae- another Amiga emulator, in the under construction phase. Looks good so far.
OpenShot- video editor..you can put together family or whatever type videos with this, add music etc.
mypaint- if you like drawing..this is a nice piece to install. reminds me of Dpaint.
Audacity-audio editor.. I've used it to make ringtones for my phones
-
When babelfish or google translate can convert trollspeak, I'll understand you better. Till then, its all greek to me.
@TheMagicM,
You really have to excuse CommodoreJohn, remember he is still using a C64 for his computing needs, the reason he hates PC's so much is nobody told him yet that he has to plug in his keyboard and that he has placed mouse traps all around his computer since he was told he has a mouse with his computer.
Remember, to install Linux today you have to know how to download an ISO, burn it to a DVD, then turn off your computer put the DVD in the computer, turn it on and then you have to type in your name when asked and think up a password, know your timezone and then Linux pretty much install itself. The reason CommodoreJohn thinks that Linux is such a kludge is because he has to put in the password twice after he gets done thinking of one, I know CJ it is so confusing.
Well now that i came in and stirred up the pot, I will run now because I know CJ will be at his best.
smerf
-
@TheMagicM,
You really have to excuse CommodoreJohn, remember he is still using a C64 for his computing needs, the reason he hates PC's so much is nobody told him yet that he has to plug in his keyboard and that he has placed mouse traps all around his computer since he was told he has a mouse with his computer.
Remember, to install Linux today you have to know how to download an ISO, burn it to a DVD, then turn off your computer put the DVD in the computer, turn it on and then you have to type in your name when asked and think up a password, know your timezone and then Linux pretty much install itself. The reason CommodoreJohn thinks that Linux is such a kludge is because he has to put in the password twice after he gets done thinking of one, I know CJ it is so confusing.
Well now that i came in and stirred up the pot, I will run now because I know CJ will be at his best.
smerf
LMFAO!!!! That was good.
-
I forgot to add...
I have had trouble trying to install from a USB stick. No problems installing from a DVD however.
Any tips on installing from a USB stick? Is it worth fiddling with the BIOS to do it?
-
Okay folks,
I have pretty much narrowed it down to a choice between Lubuntu and Ubuntu. I have considered the distros made for music making (i.e. Linux Studio) but I like to start off with a clean slate rather than have a lot of apps installed for me beforehand.
So, what is the real difference between Lubuntu and Ubuntu, other than that the former is "lighter"? If it is lighter, but can do all the same things, than why doesn't everyone just use that?
Also, if I do go with Lubuntu, am I going to be able to find that programs are already available in precompiled version for that distro? Will I be able to just download Ubuntu compiled stuff and run it?
I guess what I'm asking is - what is the "downside" of Lubuntu over regular Ubuntu? The website doesn't make it clear. The Ubuntu site says Ubuntu only needs a 700Mhz processor and 500MB RAM - so that seems pretty light already!
Remember, I'm going to install this on an 8 year old PC (P4, 3GBRAM) so that was another reason I was attracted to the "lighter" sounding Lubuntu.
Thanks, really appreciate all the suggestions.
Also, is there anything like Irfanview for Linux? I love that little utility.
Looking at Amiga emulators for Linux, there seems to be a few (FS-UAE, E-UAE) - which is better developed?
-
I forgot to add...
I have had trouble trying to install from a USB stick. No problems installing from a DVD however.
Any tips on installing from a USB stick? Is it worth fiddling with the BIOS to do it?
I believe Spatry has a course on that on Spatry's cup of Linux, you can look it up on Youtube.
This guy has so many video's on Linux, just ran into it about 3 days ago, need info, Spatry probably has an answer for it on a video.
Didn't look it up myself, but i know I have seen it.
smerf
-
Okay folks,
Also, is there anything like Irfanview for Linux? I love that little utility.
You CAN run irfanview thru wine on Linux if you really wanted to. Check out gthumb also..
-
I forgot to add...
I have had trouble trying to install from a USB stick. No problems installing from a DVD however.
Any tips on installing from a USB stick? Is it worth fiddling with the BIOS to do it?
Does it boot from USB stick or completely bypasses it without trying? Can you go into the boot menu and manually tell it to boot from USB stick?
-
@ral-clan,
Good choice on Ubuntu type OS's, lubuntu is lighter because it is basically made to work on old laptops, computers, and some of today's tablets. I tried this a couple of days ago, and it seems real nice. Uses about 512 megs of memory (if I remember right) so you don't need a massive amount of memory, and very light on graphics usage.
You won't get all that much eye candy, or desktop mods, but can be downloaded and used, and yes you can use Ubuntu programs on it, as long as your machine has the space memory etc.
But, like all things, the more you add the more machine resources it needs. By light weight Linux means something you can put on an old machine, like my Toshiba laptop, with 512 megs of memory, and a 10 gig hard drive. (and to think an Amiga 4000 uses only a 1.2 gig HD and 18 meg of memory, original one guys not your souped up do everything Amiga's today my A4000 came with 10 meg hd thats right 20 meg, not gig).
Anyhow if you get a chance try Zorin OS 8, Premium, if you get the Ultimate you will have to pay money because of more packages installed. It is at http://www.zorin.com.
I like it over ubuntu, because it has wine, playonlinux, and wine tricks, so I can play my Windows games (look at the listing provided for programs that work). I like the look (mine is windows 7) and the feel, I am using the 64 bit version, but had a hard time installing Far Cry 2, it kept giving me a IBE64.exe error, which I believe is caused by not being a 64 bit game, need to look it up. I know I had problems with Far Cry 2 with my 64 bit Windows XP os. Which I removed and went back to Windows XP 32 bit OS because of multiple problems.
Hope this helped, my top three choice right now are Zorin, Ubuntu, and then Lubuntu with PinguyOS, and Majora bringing up the rear. Really my first and favorite OS is Amiga OS 3.9, but oh well, my last favorite OS is Windows, although I do like Windows 8.1 installed on my 2nd place PC computer, with Windows 7 holding first, but Windows 7 is so sluggish, compared to Windows 8, that I am thinking of going to Windows 8.1 on all my game machines, but refuse to do so as of yet, because MS just has to much control of your computer (can you say NSA). Mac's and especially PC's have given in to NSA, and over 100,000 computers have shipped with rf wave activated devices on them which can be turned on or off by the NSA for spy purposes.
America Land of the Free, but only if you can pay your taxes. Spent 20 years in the Military only to run into this obamaination.
By the way when Linux maker Torvedous was asked by the NSA for a back door into their OS, his reply was there are so many different distro's and people doing stuff it would probably be good for only a couple of days and that he could think of no way to back door Linux.
smerf
-
By the way when Linux maker Torvedous
smerf
you probably meant his brother Torvalds.. ;-)
-
Pinquyos http://pinguyos.com/ (http://pinguyos.com/)
Definitely the best place to start for a beginner.
-
@TheMagicM,
Remember, to install Linux today you have to know how to download an ISO, burn it to a DVD, then turn off your computer put the DVD in the computer, turn it on and then you have to type in your name when asked and think up a password, know your timezone and then Linux pretty much install itself....
smerf
You dont even need to do that nowadays if you use the "Windows Installer" ...
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/windows-installer
N...
-
I like the Ubuntu "Studio" version because it included GIMP. Definitely a great program if you plan on doing any photo editing at all. :)
-
@ral-clan,
Good choice on Ubuntu type OS's, lubuntu is lighter because it is basically made to work on old laptops, computers, and some of today's tablets. I tried this a couple of days ago, and it seems real nice. Uses about 512 megs of memory (if I remember right) so you don't need a massive amount of memory, and very light on graphics usage.
Yeah, I understand Lubuntu is meant for older computers - but what have they cut out of it besides the eye candy? Is it less functional than Ubuntu?
Also, is there any way to have a shared folder between your Windows and Linux partitions, so you can, for instance, save a graphics project you've been working on on the Linux side and when you load Windows you can access it?
Thanks.
-
Also, is there any way to have a shared folder between your Windows and Linux partitions, so you can, for instance, save a graphics project you've been working on on the Linux side and when you load Windows you can access it?
Thanks.
easiest way...save to usb..
Otherwise... create a partition that can be read by both Linux and Windows, NTFS or similiar. Find out your folder name you want accessible and either:
A) save everything to the NTFS partition (create symlinks that will point to it)
B) manually copy stuff to the NTFS partition when you are about to switch back to Windows
IE.
If you have a "downloads" directory..
create a directory on the NTFS partition called "downloads", then create a symlink to it from the Linux side. Everything you save to "downloads" in Linux will actually go to the NTFS partition.
-
Yeah, I understand Lubuntu is meant for older computers - but what have they cut out of it besides the eye candy? Is it less functional than Ubuntu?
Basically yes. As far as I remember, been a while since using Lubuntu, it's basically the core ubuntu with a lightweight UI and some eye candy stripped. It will be the exact same system though as all other debian/ubuntu systems.
Also, is there any way to have a shared folder between your Windows and Linux partitions, so you can, for instance, save a graphics project you've been working on on the Linux side and when you load Windows you can access it?
Thanks.
Ubuntu will read Windows NTFS fine. Windows, on the other hand, wont. One way is to created a little partition, with NTFS, to store common files on. Another is to keep a usb stick handy and just dump files on there. Another is to follow this link (http://www.howtogeek.com/112888/3-ways-to-access-your-linux-partitions-from-windows/) and use the guide provided.
Another tip is to download a Ubuntu cheat sheet for CLI commands and basic file system structure. It comes in handy for numerous occasions.
-
Hi guys,
So for the first time I am very seriously considering Linux. I would like to start by dipping my toe into Linux with the aim of eventually make it my day-to-day OS in a few years.
I would recommend setting up a virtual environment and playing with the distributions in that until you find the one you want to run instead of immediately doing a dual boot setup. Also, you can try the Live CDs but I find them to be a little slow to really give me a full feel for the OS in question.
Linux is a very powerful OS that has come a long way in usability, ease of installation, and ease of software installation. A lot of the dependencies and other issues are taken care of by the software distribution systems and even when you compile software today dependencies are easier to deal with. However, the average user can use Linux without the need to compile any software as the software "repositories" have most of what you'll use.
Ubuntu is the common distribution that many end users select and there are good derivatives of it that are compatible with it's software collection.
http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/derivatives
Lbuntu
Xbuntu
I haven't played with Mint but it seems to be popular.
Personally, I like SuSe and their YAST system of management for settings and software installation, etc.
Any OS can have it's problems as Windows has proven time and time again. No OS is flawless and Linux has gotten far, far better than back in the early days when installing it meant compiling the kernel and messing with the GRUB loader just to get the system up. Installation entails little more than booting from a CD and answering a few fairly simple questions.
You can take a look at Ubuntu Studio for some of the open source software for video, photo and audio. Nothing wrong with keeping Windows around for software you can't get compatible on Linux for but be sure to take a look at the free software to see if it would meet or supplement your needs. http://ubuntustudio.org/
I'd switch from Windows completely in a heartbeat but there are a few software applications that I also use that Linux doesn't quite have a counterpart to yet.
If you become a member of the Linux community be sure to Google questions first and you'll avoid most of the RTFM, which has gotten better in recent years but the Linux community is snooty compared to the Amiga community. I remember how many hours I spent learning from my fellow Amigans who seldom if ever would turn you away without helping. That Amiga community stands alone in any computer community that I've been in. The closest I've found is Novell where if someone told you to read the manual they would refer you to the exact page that answered your question.
1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?
-> Most will run on fairly low specifications but derivatives of Ubuntu like xubuntu, lubuntu and Mint take less to run. You can get system specifications by just googling the distribution and system specifications.
2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?
-> I'd start with live CDs to see if you like the looks of the Os at all. Then I'd run it in a Virtual Machine. You can use the Open Source Virtual Box or VMWare if you want to buy it.
3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?
-> Don't install the dual boot until after you find the OS you want to keep. You might want to look at an third party boot loader to manage your installations like Acronis OS Selector. It's always a good idea to take an image of your working system, I use Acronis for that but there are some good free disk imaging tools out there. MaximumPC just covered some of them recently.
5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?
->Acronis Disk Director or another linux system bootable GParted disk to resize the partition and create a new one for Linux and then install into it. It might be better to add a small hard drive.
6. Any complications or pitfalls I need to watch out for on a dual boot system?
-> Boot loaders can get misconfiguration when you install new OSs. Third party might be better. I prefer Virtual Machines myself.
7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.
-> Uhm, well they are all based on common standards but their binaries are not all compatible. That doesn't mean that the same software is available for most common distributions in a pre-compiled state. Redhat and SuSe use RPMs to distribute software and Debian/Ubuntu use apt-get repositories. I wouldn't worry about common binaries, I'd worry about common software.
8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?
->Wine is only compatible with certain applications and I'd imagine not the ones you are looking to run. It's a really neat package but not the same as a full Windows install.
I hope this helps you decide to give Linux a try you might just find you like it better for a daily driver and only end up booting up Windows for a few specific software programs that you can't yet get on Linux. If you end up not liking one GUI, you can always try another, now that is something to really like about Linux.
-
@TheMagicM,
You really have to excuse CommodoreJohn, remember he is still using a C64 for his computing needs, ......................
Remember, to install Linux today you have to know how to download an ISO, burn it to a DVD, then turn off your computer put the DVD in the computer, turn it on and then you have to type in your name when asked and think up a password, know your timezone and then Linux pretty much install itself. .................
smerf
LOL! Poor old CJ. Smerf roast.
I do have to say though, burning those ISOs is so passe, I just mount them as a virtual CD in my VMWare virtual machines and install from within the ISO archive off my hard drive. It's a lot faster that way and I don't waste plastic.
-
I would recommend setting up a virtual environment and playing with the distributions in that until you find the one you want to run instead of immediately doing a dual boot setup.
Sounds like good advice, but let's say I do this and spend a week setting up a nice Linux environment with all the applications I want. Then I decide I want to keep it. Is there any way for me to put this virtual machine on a real hard drive partition, or would I have to go through setup all over again from scratch on the real partition.
Glad I am asking all of this on an Amiga forum - don't want the RTFM stuff from the Linux forums.
-
I have not personally done this myself but his link should help. http://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/show/1946-copying-a-virtual-linux-system-from-virtualbox-to-a-real-physical-machine
-
LOL! Poor old CJ. Smerf roast.
I'm not going to worry too much about smerf's opinion, he always posts from some parallel universe or other, like this one where I apparently hate PCs despite being fond of Windows XP.
-
@Nlandas,
Sorry man, I use DVD-RW, that way I can run a distro in about 6 different machines before I decide. I have my 8 core, 6 core, dual core, AMD 3700+, and 2 very old laptops that I use to test a distro, but you bring up a good point, about a virtual HD. I really never taught of that, gives me something else to try. Thanks for the tip.
smerf
-
VMs are so nice why bother with a non-virtual machine? Most computers have terrabytes of hd and underutilised cores. Linux is more than happy for most purposes with a gig or two of RAM. and you can pass things between OSs if they are both running.
-
@commodorejohn,
I like that reply, now I feel like a parallel universe visitor. Better give up on Windows XP, it is being closed down and the coffin nailed shut, I already downloaded a whole bunch of stuff on XP, like their service paks and have them stored on DVD disks, learned this from when Win2000 shut down. Believe it or not, when I first started using Win 8, I hated it, but after a year of using it, I really am starting to like it, it loads fast, and you can do just about everything you want when you learn all the ins and outs of the system. When ever I use my Windows 7 machines, I am wondering why they are so darn slow.
Anyhow just dropped in and wanted to see what old timers where still around.
Just remember if they aren't busting you then they probably don't like ya. So you must be one of the most liked people in Amiga ville.
smerf
-
SteamOS http://store.steampowered.com/steamos/download (http://store.steampowered.com/steamos/download)
-
I would be interested to see how ral-clan gets on with VM'ing. Given that he has stated that the host is a P4 @ 2.8ghz. I am unsure if any of the P4's ever had VT. (http://www.amiga.org/forums/member.php?u=3801)
-
SteamOS http://store.steampowered.com/steamos/download
Isn't Steam OS aimed more at media centre style systems? And in all fairness you can download the Steam Client anyway for Debian (Ubuntu and Mint) systems. Just grab the .deb from Valve and off you go.
However we have to remember that this is going on a P4.
-
I would be interested to see how ral-clan gets on with VM'ing. Given that he has stated that the host is a P4 @ 2.8ghz. I am unsure if any of the P4's ever had VT. (http://www.amiga.org/forums/member.php?u=3801)
That was my thought exactly. My system is only a P4 with 3GB RAM. Apparently you can download Microsoft's Virtual Machine 2007 and use it in Windows XP, but I don't think a VM is a practical option for me with this system. I'll probably either just make a true partition when I'm ready or install on a USB stick (with the intention of later moving it to a real hard drive partition).
I can't install a dedicated hard drive for Linux because my system already has drives on all the IDE channels/pairs.
-
That was my thought exactly. My system is only a P4 with 3GB RAM. Apparently you can download Microsoft's Virtual Machine 2007 and use it in Windows XP, but I don't think a VM is a practical option for me with this system. I'll probably either just make a true partition when I'm ready or install on a USB stick (with the intention of later moving it to a real hard drive partition).
I can't install a dedicated hard drive for Linux because my system already has drives on all the IDE channels/pairs.
Virtual Box is a free VM program. It works well and you may just get away with VM'ing it rather than spending money and time on Microsofts own VM stuff. The amount of RAM will work because I am sure that the lightweight Lubuntu uses roughly 300-500mb when fully loaded.
If you want to install Lubuntu to a USB stick then check out this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1872303). You will need at the very least a 4gb USB stick. Or if you have a spare USB physical drive then even better. Just remember that performance might be slightly impacted due to read and write speeds. And with the amount of RAM you have I would highly suggest using a Swap partition.
Just a quick question. How are you planning on connecting the system to the net? Is it on Wi-Fi or hard wired?
-
Virtual Box is a free VM program. It works well and you may just get away with VM'ing it rather than spending money and time on Microsofts own VM stuff.
If you want to install Lubuntu to a USB stick then check out this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1872303). You will need at the very least a 4gb USB stick. Or if you have a spare USB physical drive then even better. Just remember that performance might be slightly impacted due to read and write speeds.
Justa quick question. How are you planning on connecting the system to the net? Is it on Wi-Fi or hard wired?
Hi! Well, my desktop is wired - and I had the internet going straight from the Lubunto live CD automatically. That was neat.
I do have an XP laptop used by the rest of the family for average day-to-day stuff. If my Linux experience is positive I could see installing Linux on that one day. It of course is wireless.
Why, is wireless networking a particular tricky thing with Linux?
-
Hi! Well, my desktop is wired - and I had the internet going straight from the Lubunto live CD automatically. That was neat.
I do have an XP laptop used by the rest of the family for average day-to-day stuff. If my Linux experience is positive I could see installing Linux on that one day. It of course is wireless.
Why, is wireless networking a particular tricky thing with Linux?
it's down to the chipsets that manufacturers use. Some use a common chipset which have freely available drivers (oddly enough these tend to be the cheaper cards and such), so they can be used within the Linux kernel without issue. If a manufacturer uses their own chipsets and closed srouce drivers then its a case of finding out of the manufacturer is supporting Linux.
My main issue with Linux has always been with wireless networking and finding a adapter/card that worked. I had a crappy old belkin adapter for years but it crapped out and I ended up buying some of those plug into a socket lan things.
As a side note all this Linux talk has got me to log into my Linux partition which I havent touched in a while because I have been using a Cisco netowrk simulator for learning CCNA. It was way outdated lol. I was using Ubuntu 13.04 and it is now at 13.10. But a simple sudo apt-get dist-upgradesorted that lol.
-
@ral-clan
Don't bother with the MS Virtual Machine. It is rubbish, it can only emulate very basic things.
Oracle VM is very advanced and fun to play with. You can fiddle around and not break anything.
-
@ral-clan
Don't bother with the MS Virtual Machine. It is rubbish, it can only emulate very basic things.
Oracle VM is very advanced and fun to play with. You can fiddle around and not break anything.
Yup. MS VM is only good if you are going to be running just Windows on a basic level. I have used it to host Win 98 on occasion. Virtual Box is much more feature rich. However I am concious of the limitations of the host.
Seems the more I think about it the more that installing to USB might be a more sound idea.
-
...One of the coolest ones is Knoppix...
This was my first Linux experience years ago - loved it! Klaus Knopper was an Amiga user, he still pays homage to the Amiga's Startup-Sequence while booting Knoppix. It also moves easily with a script to a bootable thumb drive and is very usable from there (Great way to bypass Windows spyware ;)). My only bitch: It should be simple to turn OFF Compiz Fusion. It isn't. Better yet, I wish it weren't included.
One of the cleanest and most intuitive distros I've tried is Debian 6 (uses classic Gnome2).
-
My gateway Linux experience was with Mandrake 7.2 Power Pack Deluxe. Came on a whopping 7 cd's back in 2000 and needed 5gb for a total install. It was a beast.
Found a review http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/2567/1
The installer for this was a bit of a learning curve. It had a "graphical" installer. But by graphical it meant a cli with some colours and boxes. Think installing something on DOS. So it was a real pain the backside especially when you had to deal with the Mandrake specific installer stuff. But once I had it running it was a beast.
I remember I had to leech the net connection at college to get software for it. It came with a package manager called RPMDrake. Made life easier but if I got a program that needed dependencies I didn't have then I could do jack all about it. Which is why I invested in a external V92 modem running at a blistering 56.6kbs. Then I got one of these USB ADSL things, at the start of the ADSl boom.
(http://speedtouch.hysplace.co.uk/images/28_L.jpg)
That was a pain to get working.
I seem to recall mine coming with KDE 2 as the default window manager.
-
I think the best advice for anyone moving to linux is that first and foremost, spend some time learning getting around and launching programs. Next, spend some time finding replacements for things you used in your old system. (and installing them) There are plenty of websites which you can visit that show common replacements for windows programs.
Chrome and firefox are more of less the same accross linux/osx/windows now, so thats no problem...
The problem some have is that there simply IS no decent replacement for some things... Like if your used to final cut forget the linux video editors they are %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! in comparison, okay for basic stuff but forget doing serious projects. This is thankfully starting to change now, nice things on the horizon.
I suggest that most people dual boot. Eventually, you may find yourself only rebooting for those few apps you really can't find good replacements for, which are very few I think... Me? I still reboot to play games and use my audio/video editors of choice. But more and more I am linux almost all the time. Its just a joy to use compared to the alternatives, but then I like customizing things and having more control.
Me? I love being able to run windows/dos and amiga apps all on the same box. Wine is good for many things, dosbox and uae run anything dos or amiga pretty great...
Wine? Well some things just don't run, so I reboot to run those things...
-
Didn't read the whole thread but my advice would be to get whatever Linux you want running off a USB stick first if you can. This way you can see if it even works as well as you like before you go permanently messing with your partitions or whatever. This is really about the same thing as dual booting because if you want to boot XP, remove/deselect USB, if you want Linux boot off of USB. I've been running Linux Mint off of USB for about 6 months now and have no immediate plans to even install it on the HD as I don't really see any advantage to that yet. I can still access all the data on my HD partition anyway. If I want to try some other Linux distro I'll throw it on another USB and away I go, nothing to even mess with if I toss my previous distro away.
I did previously try Linux distributions over the many years but I never had much luck due to hardware incompatibilities. This was the first distribution that ran on a computer I have with no problems. So for me running Linux has a lot to do with will it actually work to your satisfaction, at least with USB drives it's pretty painless to try for a while.
-
I have already mentioned this but find some cheat sheets. One for general Linux commands then one for your specific distribution. Having cheat sheets to hand are mega handy. I have one for Linux that I have had for years, I laminated it to keep it safe, and a Ubuntu specific and Debian Specific one I update every so often. One of the greatest things you can learn is how to use the Terminal. And a physical cheat sheet always helped me.
-
Good thing about Linux is most of the distros either have live cd variants or fairly easy VM solutions to give them a whirl rather than having to do a "real" install of them.
I'm partial to Ubuntu these days just due to ease of use, but there's a fair portion of the community that swore off Ubuntu when they made it more "windows like" UI wise a few stages back. If I used Linux more, I'd probably use something other than Ubuntu, though. I just use it mainly due to ease of use right out of the box, it's very familiar feeling to a Windows user like myself.
Personally, I found that a good thing. I work in the PC trade as a part time living, and get a lot of old hand me down, XP era PC's that I have no use for. I generally donate them to people that can use them, non profits and such and such people generally have no issues picking up Ubuntu's learning curve if they have some Windows experience. It's not for everyone, though.
Mint is very nice as well, as is Puppy Linux. Puppy has a very low overhead and works just great on older boxes, as does Slack.
-
Yup. MS VM is only good if you are going to be running just Windows on a basic level. I have used it to host Win 98 on occasion. Virtual Box is much more feature rich. However I am concious of the limitations of the host.
Seems the more I think about it the more that installing to USB might be a more sound idea.
A question about virtual machines:
Lets say you are running Linux, and have a PCI card (or other hardware) installed for which Linux has no drivers (so useless from within Linux). Then you set up a Virtual Machine running Windows XP, and in that virtual machine there are drivers for that PCI card. Can the PCI card be used normally from within that Virtual Machine?
I ask this because I have a semi-pro audio card and graphics tablet for which there might not be Linux drivers. I probably will go dual-boot instaed of VM, but just wanted to get an answer on this question first.
Thanks.
-
No. Everything needs to be on the host. Only CD drives etc. can be added separate.
-
No. Everything needs to be on the host. Only CD drives etc. can be added separate.
Actually, kind of.. If you use XEN as your hypervisor (VM)
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_PCI_Passthrough
But it's (actually, all of XEN) for the pretty advanced admin. Not an end user friendly option. ;-)
desiv
-
I'm thinking building a SteamOS box for one of my TVs. It has fairly minimal needs.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2095494/how-to-build-your-own-steam-machine-today-for-560.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2095494/how-to-build-your-own-steam-machine-today-for-560.html)
-
Hello World!
This thread is something I could not avoid posting in...
In regards to the Linux operating system... I have been working Linux since July 1997. It started off as a profession, now it's just a hobby of mine.
As for OS wars, like Windows vs. Linux, I no longer do those.
My focus is productivity, however, I'm retired due to medical disabilities, and since 2014 has started, I'm focusing on simplicity for a less stressful computing environment.
My primary computer, the ailing Compaq Presario M2000 laptop, has been running Windows 7 Starter Edition since last May 2013, as a financial birthday gift from my parents in USA. I used to dual-boot Linux on it, but had to recent stop doing it because my laptop is now on death row.
I have two netbooks running Debian 8 "Jessie" Linux: The ASUS Eee PC 2G Surf (700MHz Intel) and the Neo eXplore II (900MHz Intel). Both netbooks are configured with FS-UAE & FS-UAE-LAUNCHER, as I'm porting all systems from Amiga Forever Plus Edition into them, to "substitute" use of the Amiga Forever Player in Windows. I'm manually decoding RP9 files for use with FS-UAE-LAUNCHER.
I have two System-on-a-Chip (SoC) computers running Linux: BeagleBone Black (headless, Debian 8 "Jessie") and Raspberry Pi (LXDE, Raspbian 7 "Wheezy").
My Android Tablet PC is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 (http://www.samsung.com/ph/consumer/mobile-devices/tablets/tablets/SM-T2100ZWAXTC). Yes, it has Amiga Forever Essentials installed. It also has JuiceSSH Pro installed for servicing my Linux computers via the command-line interface.
In July 1997, when I first learned Red Hat & Slackware Linux, I learned Linux strictly via the command-line interface (CLI). At that time, I was used to using Sun Solaris (UNIX) and I was a MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional).
Since 1989, the C programming language has been my preferred programming language. Back then, I was porting C source code from IBM PCs & Apple Macs into Amiga 500. Last year, I re-discovered how to compile C source code in an emulated Amiga 500.
In 2010, I entered embedded systems development and my veteran experience with the C programming language has proved extremely useful. I've programmed Atmel 8051/AVR/ARM, Microchip PIC, or others. When it comes to Amiga via emulation, I plan on working my embedded projects.
Because of the Say speech synthesizer of the Amiga 500 I had 25 years ago, one of my extraordinary hobbies became phoneme-to-speech speech synthesis. Now, I work SpeakJet speech synthesis as a specialized hobby. When I have noticed the Serial Port panel in Amiga's system's folder, I do have some ideas for Amiga speech synthesis via SpeakJet.
Now it is 2014 and my medical disabilities are severely affecting all of my computer work. I do not know how much longer I can keep my "supergeek" status, but retirement is just around the corner for me. I can no longer repair computers. Arthritis is now in my hands and fingers.
My statement is, "It does not matter what operating system you use, just as long as you make something from it. Because, when your human body becomes weak and/or disabled, you have accomplishments to talk about."
-
Hello World!
.....
My statement is, "It does not matter what operating system you use, just as long as you make something from it. Because, when your human body becomes weak and/or disabled, you have accomplishments to talk about."
So sorry to hear about your condition. I agree with you 100%. For me productivity is the most important thing. Delivering / creating / accomplishing something is why we use a tool. Understanding why the Amiga was such a big hit for me is because it allowed me to do stuff I couldn't on any other machine as well at the time.
Learning about an OS is fun, and having it to "live with" or consume content is fun too, but you can do that on a tablet more portably and elegantly.
Your response is moving and poignant.
All the best.
-
Okay, one more question.
One of the thing that bugs me about Windows, is that if your motherboard dies, you cannot just take the hard drive out and put in in a different computer and keep going. The Windows XP installation is dependent on certain drivers set up to match the motherboard and related hardware it was running on (or so I've read). Migrating a whole hard-disc to a new computer is difficult and a re-install is usually a better choice (besides the whole registration/authentication thing).
Is Linux any better in this regard? Is migration to a new base set of hardware simple? I assume it is better since the whole "Live CD" and "Live USB stick" installation seems to be very base hardware independent.
This would be a very important attraction for me to Linux, as I had a motherboard die on me once and had to re-install my whole Windows XP system from scratch on a new XP. Simply moving the hard drive over would have been so much nicer!
-
Okay, one more question.
One of the thing that bugs me about Windows, is that if your motherboard dies, you cannot just take the hard drive out and put in in a different computer and keep going. The Windows XP installation is dependent on certain drivers set up to match the motherboard and related hardware it was running on (or so I've read). Migrating a whole hard-disc to a new computer is difficult and a re-install is usually a better choice (besides the whole registration/authentication thing).
Is Linux any better in this regard? Is migration to a new base set of hardware simple? I assume it is better since the whole "Live CD" and "Live USB stick" installation seems to be very base hardware independent.
This would be a very important attraction for me to Linux, as I had a motherboard die on me once and had to re-install my whole Windows XP system from scratch on a new XP. Simply moving the hard drive over would have been so much nicer!
From my own experiences I had no issues transplanting a HDD from one system to another as they were both x64 systems, AMD to Intel. The initial start was slower while the OS reconfigured some drivers and such for the new system but otherwise it worked. If you migrate from a X86 to x64 (32bit to 64bit) it will still work but be aware you will be working to 32bit limitations with RAM sizes. If your system dies while it's on a x64 install then it won't work on a x86 setup.
Basically if you're planning on installing onto a USb stick and sticking to roughly the same architecure (32bit in your case) then install the 32bit version of the OS onto the stick and it will work no matter what.
-
One of the thing that bugs me about Windows, is that if your motherboard dies, you cannot just take the hard drive out and put in in a different computer and keep going.
Not that this helps your question at all, but when I have a motherboard failure in any of our systems, I just go on ebay or amazon and purchase an identical replacement motherboard. Just my .02 cents from someone who's replaced hundreds of motherboards over the years. ;)
Glad you're enjoying Linux so far! :)
-
All depends on which version (not XP / Vista / 7, so much, etc. - but home, business, oem, vlk, ultimate) of windows you are running.
Some won't allow what Ral-Clan said.
-
Depends on whether you want to use any of the new MB features or not. Most MBs will run in a backwards compatible state but I think you're missing the point of technology upgrades: New features, not backwards compatibility. Yes your IDE drive and raid chipset will work but what are you missing out on? In the world of Linux it's not such a big issue. But try running Windows 8.1... Sorry best I leave it there.
-
Not that this helps your question at all, but when I have a motherboard failure in any of our systems, I just go on ebay or amazon and purchase an identical replacement motherboard. Just my .02 cents from someone who's replaced hundreds of motherboards over the years. ;)
Glad you're enjoying Linux so far! :)
Yeah, I thought of this, but the reason my motherboard died was because of swollen capacitors. I checked out an identical computer for sale locally (good price) but it was also suffering from swollen capacitors (just hadn't failed yet). So I was very wary of sticking with the same motherboard, even though I was very happy with the computer while it had functioned.
-
And...that's just silly.
Kind of like defending an OS that uses a flat database like the Windows Registry.
Registry is just another file system. /etc is much much worse.
The Windows XP installation is dependent on certain drivers set up to match the motherboard and related hardware it was running on (or so I've read). Migrating a whole hard-disc to a new computer is difficult and a re-install is usually a better choice (besides the whole registration/authentication thing).
The AHCI / IDE setting in the bios has to match, although you can boot in IDE mode and then change it to expect AHCI mode on the next boot (google for change sata mode after windows installation).
You can also have problems if it needs to use a different hal, but I believe you can force it to redetect that too on the next boot (google for bcdedit /detecthal )
I've not used Linux recently, but back when I did you had to relink the kernel depending on the hardware in the machine. That might have changed and even if it hasn't there will be guides on how to do it. You also have to pray that there are actually Linux drivers for your hardware, people who like Linux are prepared to go through a lot of pain to use it.
I don't mind reinstalling windows, it usually gives you the opportunity to discard stuff that you can't be bothered to track down and delete but you won't miss if you never bother to install again.
I wouldn't stay with XP, I have been running 8 for ages now & it's much nicer. Now that they have fixed android fastboot for flashing my phone in 8.1, I am going to reinstall soon. #notmissingstartmenu
-
I've not used Linux recently, but back when I did you had to relink the kernel depending on the hardware in the machine.
Thats probably a while back now and probably a throwback to the days when you might have needed to recompile a kernel or patch it to get some obscure hardware to work. Most distributions use kernel modules loaded at boot time. Im not entirely sure how the hardware detection part works. But the chances are if you swap your hard drives over two machines and the architecture isnt radically different (eg different CPU Arch) itll just load a different bunch of kernel modules.
Special cases would be using binary drivers for graphics cards - that said you would probably drop back to a framebuffer mode. And nowadays there are open source versions of the NVidia and AMD GPU's (performance not as good as the binary ones though).
The other situation that would cause this is if you were rolling your own distro ala Gentoo or Slackware and compiled your modules into the kernel binary. (Unlikely in this case!)
Sometimes i forget what a faff it used to be! Stuff just works (tm) nowadays!
Nick
-
Is Linux any better in this regard? Is migration to a new base set of hardware simple? I assume it is better since the whole "Live CD" and "Live USB stick" installation seems to be very base hardware independent.
Most things will just work except for the X configuration if there is a config file that selects a certain card that is not in the system anymore. You will likely boot in command line mode then and have to reconfigure the X server manually.
The latest Linux distros don't use a xorg.conf file anymore and will adapt to even a changed graphics card. If you install the proprietary AMD or NVidia drivers this likely won't be the case anymore.
-
Yeah, I thought of this, but the reason my motherboard died was because of swollen capacitors. I checked out an identical computer for sale locally (good price) but it was also suffering from swollen capacitors (just hadn't failed yet). So I was very wary of sticking with the same motherboard, even though I was very happy with the computer while it had functioned.
Have a look at one of those Re-Cap services, may cost you $50 but will be like new.
Chris
-
Congrats on enjoying Linux, its a great OS despite its flaws. I've used IRIX, Solaris, SunOS, OS X, Windows, AmigaOS, BeOS/ZETA/Haiku, FreeBSD and Linux itself is by far one of the better ones around.
-
I love Windows 7 (hate Windows 8, but that's a different story)
I see Windows 7 as the next XP. Windows Vista and Windows 8 are crap. The only thing they got right on Windows 8 is the copy/moving feature. Using Windows XP today is a bit like using Windows 3.1 in 2000. If it serves your needs then fine, but it's time to let go and move on to something more modern!
-
Well MegaMig, we're on a vintage computer site. AmigaOS isn't modern by any standard, and yet I doubt 10% or less of the population here would consider it obsolete. Its just that in hindsight, XP is crap. It was good back then, but its filth now.
-
Using Windows XP today is a bit like using Windows 3.1 in 2000.
Not really. The two are completely and utterly incomparable.
it's time to let go and move on to something more modern!
That's true, and I would if I could, but I'm strapped for cash at the moment.
It was good back then, but its filth now.
:laughing:
-
Try http://elementaryos.org if you like minimalistic, light and fast OS, based on Ubuntu. I like it a lot, another interesting and very nice looking "theme" turning into a distro itself is the upcoming http://www.webupd8.org/2014/02/numix-announces-new-linux-distribution.html
p.s. never had any issues with Linux.. for me personally, it just works.. and it works great.
-
Originally Posted by Megamig View Post
Using Windows XP today is a bit like using Windows 3.1 in 2000.
Not really. The two are completely and utterly incomparable
Right. In 2000 Windows 3.1 was only about 8 years old. Right now Windows XP is about 13 years old.
-
Right. In 2000 Windows 3.1 was only about 8 years old. Right now Windows XP is about 13 years old.
What does that difference have to do with anything? Ask yourself the following, and see how that age difference isn't relevant: How good is Win3.1 compared to WinXp, and how good is WinXp compared to Win7/8? The difference is undoubtedly very big.
By the way, I'm not defending WinXp because I still use it. If I had the cash, I'd get Win7 or 8.
-
What does that difference have to do with anything?
Oh, if you're a hip, trendy young Internet techie of the type that blindly worships the new, it's crucial!
-
Oh, if you're a hip, trendy young Internet techie of the type that blindly worships the new, it's crucial!
Are you still complaining?
Try http://elementaryos.org if you like minimalistic, light and fast OS, based on Ubuntu. I like it a lot, another interesting and very nice looking "theme" turning into a distro itself is the upcoming http://www.webupd8.org/2014/02/numix-announces-new-linux-distribution.html
p.s. never had any issues with Linux.. for me personally, it just works.. and it works great.
Just grabbed it and dumped it on a USB stick. Pretty slick.
-
What does that difference have to do with anything? Ask yourself the following, and see how that age difference isn't relevant: How good is Win3.1 compared to WinXp, and how good is WinXp compared to Win7/8? The difference is undoubtedly very big.
I see where you're coming from, because perhaps the changes from XP to Vista then 7 then 8.1 (I'm just going to leave 8.0 out of this) are less in your face then the move from 3.1 to 98, then 2000, then XP. Once you use 8.1 for a substantial amount of time, however, you appreciate just how much better than XP it is - especially if you try going back to XP once you become COMFORTABLE with 8.1 (and I'm not talking about using it for a few hours).
The front end on 8.0 is horrible, but the back end is great. 8.1 is really, really good.
Oh, if you're a hip, trendy young Internet techie of the type that blindly worships the new, it's crucial!
Being a grumpy old man who hates change is no better. The world changes. Don't let yourself get old!
Old Amiga users are becoming what we hated! The grumpy old guys who ran their IBM PCs hated the Amiga and the change it represented. Now grump old guys still using their Amigas are the ones spewing hate for anything different. Go figure!
-
Being a grumpy old man who hates change is no better. The world changes. Don't let yourself get old!
Old Amiga users are becoming what we hated! The grumpy old guys who ran their IBM PCs hated the Amiga and the change it represented. Now grump old guys still using their Amigas are the ones spewing hate for anything different. Go figure!
I don't hate change unequivocally; I hate bad change. Similarly, I don't like things for being new; I like them if they're good - I was never part of the PC-Amiga turf war, I just like the Amiga because it's good.
-
I don't hate change unequivocally; I hate bad change. Similarly, I don't like things for being new; I like them if they're good - I was never part of the PC-Amiga turf war, I just like the Amiga because it's good.
Can I have some examples?
You're saying that Windows 8.1 is not better than Windows XP?
-
You're saying that Windows 8.1 is not better than Windows XP?
While this isn't directed at me, I am inclined to concur. Windows 8/8.1 is MS BOB all over again. The Metro interface is designed for a mobile phone, and on a desktop it is clunky. The fact that Windows 8.1 failed to fix many of the flaws, it just added a shortcut to the menu, makes me not want to use it, that much.
I have not used Windows so much in the last 6 years that I don't even bother with anything besides 98lite for DOS games, 2000/XP for legacy PC compatibility, and Windows 7 for the rare occasion WINE does not do the job.
-
While this isn't directed at me, I am inclined to concur. Windows 8/8.1 is MS BOB all over again. The Metro interface is designed for a mobile phone, and on a desktop it is clunky. The fact that Windows 8.1 failed to fix many of the flaws, it just added a shortcut to the menu, makes me not want to use it, that much.
"Metro" is designed for tablet use, and should stay there. That being said 8.1 all but hides it from you, it will only pop up when you click the "Start" button and can be configured to shown in a list-type view rather than tiles. With 8.1 the only real difference is that your program list takes up the whole screen rather than having to drill into folders like you do with the XP/7 "Start" button.
All that being said if you're clicking that "Start" button often you're doing it wrong. I don't think I've seen the "Metro" interface in several weeks of using my PCs.
And THAT being said if you're still so stubborn you don't want to see it at all you can install a free or $5 add-in to bring the old functionality back to almost exactly how 7 looks and acts.
Not running 8.1 because of Metro is rather silly in my opinion, and you're only punishing yourself if you stick with XP or 7 - because 8.1 is a great OS.
-
I think this thread has come to a conclusion for Ral-clan?
An OS means different things to different people and their use of it determines its value for them. I'd suggest most Amiga users would understand that keenly.
-
I use 8.1 on a daily basis and cannot recall the last time I even saw the Metro UI interface.
8.1 Update 1 that's due here shortly will improve the divide between Metro and traditional desktop mode even further, which quite frankly should have been the way it was to begin with. W8 should have defaulted into a traditional desktop mode from the start when said OS was installed on desktop / non touch hardware versus cramming Metro down ones throat.
-
I have not used Windows so much in the last 6 years that I don't even bother with anything besides 98lite for DOS games, 2000/XP for legacy PC compatibility, and Windows 7 for the rare occasion WINE does not do the job.
And yet you have a strong opinion on Windows 8.
I certainly wouldn't go through the pain of running 2000/XP or Wine. Windows 8 is great, compatibility is great. The only annoying thing is the 64 bit versions don't support 16 bit apps, so you need to choose between 16/32 bit apps or 32/64 bit apps. You can always run a 32 bit version in a virtual machine though.
W8 should have defaulted into a traditional desktop mode from the start when said OS was installed on desktop / non touch hardware versus cramming Metro down ones throat.
I still run Windows 8 on my main machine as I couldn't update to 8.1 until recently and haven't gotten round to doing it yet. I don't feel for one second that Metro is crammed down my throat. I want 8.1 for other reasons than booting to the desktop, I'm quite capable of clicking the desktop button on the very (very) rare occasion that I need to (maybe once in the last month).
-
Can I have some examples?
You're saying that Windows 8.1 is not better than Windows XP?
I'm saying that every version of Windows after XP has bolted progressively stupider interfaces onto progressively better internals (Vista excepted on that second count,) and thus they wind up being worse despite having every other reason to be better.
"Metro" is designed for tablet use, and should stay there. That being said 8.1 all but hides it from you, it will only pop up when you click the "Start" button and can be configured to shown in a list-type view rather than tiles. With 8.1 the only real difference is that your program list takes up the whole screen rather than having to drill into folders like you do with the XP/7 "Start" button.
And that's exactly what everybody hated about Windows 8 and they didn't actually give you any means to fix that. The fact that they don't immediately throw it up in your face now does nothing to change that.
All that being said if you're clicking that "Start" button often you're doing it wrong.
According to who? I use the Start menu all the time for quick access to programs, i.e. exactly what it was intended for - why is that "wrong?" Why should I have to put up with somebody's dumbshít tablet interface in order to use my computer the way I've always used my computer?
And THAT being said if you're still so stubborn you don't want to see it at all you can install a free or $5 add-in to bring the old functionality back to almost exactly how 7 looks and acts.
And that's no thanks at all to Microsoft, who had it within their power all along to provide that option and chose to try and shove Metro down everybody's throats and only made the most passive-aggressive concession possible to all the people who were screaming at them to stop.
-
And that's no thanks at all to Microsoft, who had it within their power all along to provide that option and chose to try and shove Metro down everybody's throats and only made the most passive-aggressive concession possible to all the people who were screaming at them to stop.
This is a very good point about where Gnome went(this is still a Linux thread, isn't it? :) ) and why I won't use Ubuntu or Fedora. I know MANY people were complaining about the Unity interface. I didn't think it was such a big deal, but the departure from a more classic desktop wasn't for me after dual booting Fedora and Mint with MATE. I just like the more traditional better.
However, the difference in the Linux world is that you have lots of different choices when it comes to the desktop. Mint made it easier for Ubuntu folks by forking Gnome 2 into a modern, regularly developed for interface. You still maintain an Ubuntu core, but have all the niceties of Mint.
So I think it's important to understand that from a Linux user perspective. Window managers, file managers, desktop UIs....there are a bunch out there to choose from and they all have pros and cons. Try different distros with different desktops as standard and install different desktops from the repositories. You will be surprised and the level of customization you can achieve.
-
VICE on Linux should be as good as WinVICE, FS-UAE is using a different approach than WinUAE (Launcher + Emulator excutable, + "ingame" menus that can be used via Joystick) but is very good already and improving constantly.
I don't know why I'm making this post but....your message invoked me to look up fs-uae and I ended up watching a video containing this worse-than-baby-jo game (don't remember the name already), here's a screenshot:
(http://thumbnails109.imagebam.com/31832/10d75e318316571.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/10d75e318316571)
-
I'm saying that every version of Windows after XP has bolted progressively stupider interfaces onto progressively better internals (Vista excepted on that second count,) and thus they wind up being worse despite having every other reason to be better.
At first glance I can see why you'd say that, but while trying to "dumb down" the interface in some cases they've added so many things for power users as well. "Metro" is fine on my tablet, but horrible for the desktop - I agree with you there. But why use "Metro" if you don't like it? With 8.1 you don't have to at all (with a couple of very minor exceptions). I mean, there are so many improvements over XP and even 7 - here is a small handful off the top of my head that I would consider UI improvements:
- Far superior support for multiple displays.
- Multiple taskbar support.
- More efficient use of taskbar area (combining quick launch, combining multiple instances of apps, etc.)
- Enhanced search.
- Better use of "Start" button (right-click for quick tasks).
- Image previews in Explorer.
- etc....
And other improvements:
- Pausing file copies.
- Faster boot times. MUCH faster.
- Proper SSD suppot (Trim).
- Improve shutdown speed and reliability.
- Integrated ISO support (mount).
- Integrated DVD writing capabilities.
- Integrated VM capabilities.
- Integrated anti-virus / anti-malware.
- Far better Windows Firewall.
- Far improved task manager.
- Much improved recovery/restore options.
- etc...
And that's exactly what everybody hated about Windows 8 and they didn't actually give you any means to fix that. The fact that they don't immediately throw it up in your face now does nothing to change that.
I agree, the inability to disable "Metro" on boot was horrible about 8, but 8.1 has fixed all that. With 8 all you needed was a small add-in to fix it as well. Shame on Microsoft for not including a similar function.
Once you set "Metro" to Apps view it's way better than XP. Click the "Start" button and type a couple characters of the program you're trying to open and there it is. Computer amateurs find it FAR easier to find something that's not in their taskbar or on their desktop using this method - I know because I deal with normal (and less than normal) users all the time.
According to who? I use the Start menu all the time for quick access to programs, i.e. exactly what it was intended for - why is that "wrong?" Why should I have to put up with somebody's dumbshít tablet interface in order to use my computer the way I've always used my computer?
I disagree. The "Start" menu was meant for NOT-so quick access to programs. The "quick launch" bar in XP was made for quick access. I guarantee you that if you have a lot of applications on your PC I can find a program far faster using 8.1's "Start" button and a couple keystrokes than you could with XP.
And really, you shouldn't be using the "Start" button for anything other than very infrequently used programs. Everything else should be pinned to the taskbar which is a HUGE improvement over XP.
And that's no thanks at all to Microsoft, who had it within their power all along to provide that option and chose to try and shove Metro down everybody's throats and only made the most passive-aggressive concession possible to all the people who were screaming at them to stop.
I agree, they are stubborn folk and I have no idea what they were thinking. I think they have their heads up their asses. I was at a conference a while back and a Microsoft rep was basically berating the attendees saying we NEEDED to learn Windows 8 to support our clients whether we liked it or not. In a sense he was right, but he was missing the main point that we don't NEED to learn anything - Microsoft has to give us a product we WANT to learn, or we and our clients will go elsewhere. This was before 8.1.
Nonetheless, 8.1 really is fantastic - best version of Windows yet, and if you don't see that I feel a bit bad for you. I hope I don't get to the point where I'm so old and stubborn that I'm not able to stop and look at something with open eyes and see the good along with the bad, and hate something just because it's different.
Can I ask you something? Just a guess here, but I assume you also don't see anything worthwhile about smartphones and tablets - correct?
-
But why use "Metro" if you don't like it? With 8.1 you don't have to at all (with a couple of very minor exceptions).
Because, once again, they are not "minor" exceptions. They are very major exceptions, coming down to every single time you want to launch a program from what ought to be the Start menu.
- Far superior support for multiple displays.
- Multiple taskbar support.
- More efficient use of taskbar area (combining quick launch, combining multiple instances of apps, etc.)
- Enhanced search.
- Better use of "Start" button (right-click for quick tasks).
- Image previews in Explorer.
And none of those are actually important to me. I don't need multiple-display support because I don't use multiple displays, the taskbar "improvements" are dubious (combining instances of apps was irritating when XP introduced it, and I've had it turned off on every install,) I don't need search because I can maintain a sensible directory structure for files on my hard drive so that I always know where to find things, I don't need "quick tasks," and image previews in Explorer are another thing I've kept off in XP because they take up hard-disk space and aren't that useful. Any of those (and any of the under-the-hood improvements) may be fine for you, and I wouldn't complain about their presence in an OS (as long as I could turn off the ones that annoy me,) but they're nothing worth putting up with the ever-increasing bullshít quotient of newer Windows versions for.
Once you set "Metro" to Apps view it's way better than XP. Click the "Start" button and type a couple characters of the program you're trying to open and there it is. Computer amateurs find it FAR easier to find something that's not in their taskbar or on their desktop using this method - I know because I deal with normal (and less than normal) users all the time.
With a sensibly-maintained Start menu (and simple Start-menu maintenance really should be one of the first things a Windows user learns,) I need at most three or four keystrokes or a couple mouse clicks to get to the program I'm looking for - no more involved than your method, no waiting time for the search result, and no need to consume the entire screen just to launch one program.
I don't give a shít about computer amateurs; I care about my use of my computer. Insisting on forcing everybody to use dumbed-down access methods designed to coddle amateurs so that they never have to put in the smallest basic effort to learn not to be amateurs is just obscene.
And really, you shouldn't be using the "Start" button for anything other than very infrequently used programs. Everything else should be pinned to the taskbbar which is a HUGE improvement over XP.
Who died and made you king? I'll use whatever God-damned methods I please.
Can I ask you something? Just a guess here, but I assume you also don't see anything worthwhile about smartphones and tablets - correct?
No, I don't. I don't care if other people find them useful, but there's nothing I need them for that isn't already better served by my laptop and my dumb-phone.
-
For me there are two good reasons to upgrade from XP:
1) Future programs that simply won't run on XP.
2) 64 bit.
As for the UI, I'll adapt :)
-
@commodorejohn
I did a bigish post to reply to you. But then I realised why bother. Your posts basically come down to "This %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! isn't for me!" and varying interpretations on this theme. So that's fine, go XP it up as much as you like. But stop with constant derailment already. You're like one of these old ladies I see on public transport that complain about anything and everything.
-
For me there are two good reasons to upgrade from XP:
1) Future programs that simply won't run on XP.
2) 64 bit.
As for the UI, I'll adapt :)
3) New hardware support. These days most hardware (PC or MB) won't allow the install of XP (unless its SP3 integrated) and if it does; no drivers!
But this is all off topic.
Moving to Linux. Remember?
-
I did a bigish post to reply to you. But then I realised why bother. Your posts basically come down to "This %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! isn't for me!" and varying interpretations on this theme. So that's fine, go XP it up as much as you like. But stop with constant derailment already. You're like one of these old ladies I see on public transport that complain about anything and everything.
Do you have the appropriate class license to backseat-mod, Crit?
-
You only have to look through your posts to see the incessant old woman levels of moaning. Doesn't need any mod credentials to comment on that ;)
-
Can we please get back on Topic? or just close this thread?
Once again someone starts a thread regarding Linux , @commodorejohn predictably pipes up and the thread degenerates into a slanging match.
I am really surprised that lessons havent been learned from last time.
Nick
-
Question still remains - has John even tried Windows 8 yet, or is the incessant badmouthing still based on "facts" garnered from "credible" blogs and stories passed down from the ancients? :) You might not see value in something, but that doesn't make it crap out of the box when there's no facts and actual usage case presented.
I love hearing peoples opinions on things, but they often fall flat when people readily admit they haven't even tried the things they are smack talking.
Win 8 is what it is, and anyone that's used it will tell you the pro's and con's. IIRC, the guy was the same guy that claimed tablets and smartphones were a passing fancy and that no one in their right mind would ever have a credible use for something like an ipad. Might be of no use to you, but the people virtually throwing money at companies like Samsung and Apple, well - BS walks, the market talks, eh.
It's the ones that have no experience with things that present things as facts that often become the muttering old men in the corners, shaking their fists at "these damned newfangled kids!11!!!" :)
Sorry, the "I've seen a screenshot and read a blog and that tells me something sucks" doesn't cut it.
-
@CritAnime @polyp2000:
Best thing to do is not reply to his uneducated banter.
Other than that..good replies in this Linux thread.
-
Try http://elementaryos.org if you like minimalistic, light and fast OS, based on Ubuntu. I like it a lot, another interesting and very nice looking "theme" turning into a distro itself is the upcoming http://www.webupd8.org/2014/02/numix-announces-new-linux-distribution.html
p.s. never had any issues with Linux.. for me personally, it just works.. and it works great.
So given the recommendation I decided to take the plunge from trialing on a USB stick to installing on a actual HDD.
(clicky the pic for a bigger version)
(http://i.imgur.com/OeK9AXgl.png) (http://i.imgur.com/OeK9AXg.png)
From a newbie point of view it seems friendly enough. As most of the *buntu/debian systems tend to be. It seems lightweight too at just a little over 500mb of RAM used at system load. I am not sure how well the effects work on older end GPU's but I plan to try on a crappy old netbook with shoddy Intel accelerated graphics and see. Package management is done through the Ubuntu store or you can use terminal to easily grab stuff with a apt-get install command.
It's based on the current Ubuntu 12.04 LTS so it should remain well supported for a while. Seems a good system.
Edit:
The Terminal programs running are HTOP from process management and Midnight Commander.
-
Because, once again, they are not "minor" exceptions. They are very major exceptions, coming down to every single time you want to launch a program from what ought to be the Start menu.
When configured in Apps view, I don't consider clicking the "Start" button "using the Metro interface". It's simply a full screen view of all the programs installed on your PC, searchable and easy to find. There are no touch friendly UI elements involved.
When I say "minor" exceptions I mean things like using the Control Panel to add a user, which requires using the "Metro" interface.
And none of those are actually important to me. I don't need multiple-display support because I don't use multiple displays, the taskbar "improvements" are dubious (combining instances of apps was irritating when XP introduced it, and I've had it turned off on every install,) I don't need search because I can maintain a sensible directory structure for files on my hard drive so that I always know where to find things, I don't need "quick tasks," and image previews in Explorer are another thing I've kept off in XP because they take up hard-disk space and aren't that useful. Any of those (and any of the under-the-hood improvements) may be fine for you, and I wouldn't complain about their presence in an OS (as long as I could turn off the ones that annoy me,) but they're nothing worth putting up with the ever-increasing bullshít quotient of newer Windows versions for.
You may think you're making your point, but you're not - you're making mine. That you are grumpy and too comfortable with how things are and are unwilling or unable to accept change - even if things are better or there are better ways. Please don't take me the wrong way - not trying to be insulting. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but it's not correct to say that things are not improved or better when they clearly are.
Are some things worse? Sure, a couple.
Are some things the same? Yes.
Are many/most things better? Absolutely.
With a sensibly-maintained Start menu (and simple Start-menu maintenance really should be one of the first things a Windows user learns,) I need at most three or four keystrokes or a couple mouse clicks to get to the program I'm looking for - no more involved than your method, no waiting time for the search result, and no need to consume the entire screen just to launch one program (http://viglink.pgpartner.com/rd.php?r=5316&m=1285511532&q=n&rdgt=1396280665&it=1396453465&et=1396885465&priceret=9.99&pg=~~3&k=6803a3c1df29b125c0377d383e911350&source=feed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eamazon%2Ecom%2Fdp%2FB00EKVO2CW%2Fref%3Dasc%5Fdf%5FB00EKVO2CW2792396%3Fsmid%3DA27QWEX1MPR5NL%26tag%3Dpgmp%2D550%2D01%2D20%26linkCode%3Dasn%26creative%3D395109%26creativeASIN%3DB00EKVO2CW&st=feed&mt=~~~~~~~~n~~~).
So, you spend all this time organizing and maintaining your Start Menu hierarchy but are unwilling to get use to a few new UI elements that will make your life much easier? I can get to any program I want with either a SINGLE mouse click (taskbar) or at most 2 plus 1 or 2 keystrokes (Apps view). All without having to spend time maintaining a Start Menu hierarchy.
I don't give a shít about computer amateurs; I care about my use of my computer. Insisting on forcing everybody to use dumbed-down access methods designed to coddle amateurs so that they never have to put in the smallest basic effort to learn not to be amateurs is just obscene.
The things I'm talking about are not dumbed down, they're simply their to make you more productive whether you are an amateur or not.
Who died and made you king? I'll use whatever God-damned methods I please.
You can sit on your bicycle ass backwards too but it doesn't make it the right way to ride a bike.
No, I don't. I don't care if other people find them useful, but there's nothing I need them for that isn't already better served by my laptop and my dumb-phone.
Good for you, and that's fine - but the vast majority of other people find great value in those things, and they are more productive using them. And they're not wrong.
-
Win 8 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_139644353300810&key=59a305ea74bd99dea07f17caaa6655b5&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amiga.org%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D761737%23post761737&v=1&exp=8%3AC34%3A9&mid=__default__&type=S&libId=60f4b959-96e2-4cfb-9c07-bf6cd3256947&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopping.com%2Fwin-8%2Fproducts%3FCLT%3DSCH%26linkin_id%3D8058742%26subTrackingID%3D%5BUSERID%5D&title=Tips%20on%20moving%20to%20Linux%3F%20-%20Page%2012%20-%20Amiga.org&txt=%3CSPAN%3EWin%20%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3E8%3C%2FSPAN%3E) is what it is, and anyone that's used it will tell you the pro's and con's. IIRC, the guy was the same guy that claimed tablets and smartphones were a passing fancy and that no one in their right mind would ever have a credible use for something like ]an ipad (http://www.shopping.com/ipad/products?CLT=SCH&linkin_id=8058742&subTrackingID=[USERID). Might be of no use to you, but the people virtually throwing money at companies like Samsung and Apple (http://viglink.pgpartner.com/mrdr.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviglink.pgpartner.com%2Fsearch.php%2Fform_keyword%3Dsamsung%2Band%2Bapple&mode=), well - BS walks, the market talks, eh.
But all those people are brainwashed!!!! ;)
Sorry for my part of derailing this thread. At the ripe old age of 40 with family and kids and very little time I find myself sometimes fighting to stay modern too, and my gut is always pulling me towards staying with what's comfortable.
I have to make a conscious effort to expose myself to new ideas and new things, and when I do I usually feel excited and invigorated about things I never thought I'd like.
Linux is something I have not spent a lot of time with, but this thread has convinced me to put some more effort in that direction!
Thanks
-
I don't need multiple-display support because I don't use multiple displays
:eek: Really? Multiple displays are so cool that I use an old CRT SVGA monitor as my second display. Anything better than going back to a single monitor. You should try it sometime ;)
So, you spend all this time organizing and maintaining your Start Menu hierarchy
Arguably that only takes a few clicks after installing a program.
they are more productive using them.
But what do they produce? Who actually makes anything on a tablet or smart phone? Aren't those devices aimed at consumption rather than creation? If so, then I can certainly see how anyone mostly interested in creation doesn't find those devices very interesting.
Personally, I find those devices utterly uninteresting, because I'm simply not impressed by them. Computers with touch screen interfaces. Meh. When are we going to see some really cool stuff? Developments that are on par with the early part of the modern computer revolution which made computers available to anyone?
At the ripe old age of 40
:laughing:
I find myself sometimes fighting to stay modern too, and my gut is always pulling me towards staying with what's comfortable.
If you're fighting to stay modern, then what I wonder is: Why bother? Is there anything wrong with being old fashioned if you're not like a grumpy person about it?
-
But what do they produce? Who actually makes anything on a tablet or smart phone? Aren't those devices aimed at consumption rather than creation? If so, then I can certainly see how anyone mostly interested in creation doesn't find those devices very interesting.
I'm talking productivity, not production. I am far more efficient working with my smartphone and tablet than ever before. Emails back and forth while on-site at a client, text messages, being able to quickly and easily take photos of equipment racks, scan a LAN to see devices and MAC addresses, having a mini flashlight with me at all times, a GPS for when I'm travelling or even walking through a city I'm unfamiliar with. Really, the uses are endless. It's a tool, like anything else.
For more creative stuff, I'm less in the know but saw this recently and thought it was pretty cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU-eAzNp5Hw
Personally, I find those devices utterly uninteresting, because I'm simply not impressed by them. Computers with touch screen interfaces. Meh. When are we going to see some really cool stuff? Developments that are on par with the early part of the modern computer revolution which made computers available to anyone?
You won't, not for a long time - happens in every industry. The computer industry has reached a certain level of maturity and major innovations will be far and few between.
But, being able to carry a flashlight, voice communications device, text communications device, camera, camcorder, network scanner & analyzer, GPS, street level world atlas, restaurant finder, level, etc... all in my pocket? That's pretty freaking cool and I fail to see how anyone can think otherwise.
If you're fighting to stay modern, then what I wonder is: Why bother? Is there anything wrong with being old fashioned if you're not like a grumpy person about it?
Quite simply, staying with what's comfortable is quite boring and no fun. :)
-
I'm talking productivity, not production.
Good point. I misinterpreted that.
But, being able to carry a flashlight, voice communications device, text communications device, camera, camcorder, network scanner & analyzer, GPS, street level world atlas, restaurant finder, level, etc... all in my pocket? That's pretty freaking cool and I fail to see how anyone can think otherwise.
It's very practical and useful, sure, but cool? I don't know about that. A beast peecee with three big monitors, now that's what I would call cool.
-
It's very practical and useful, sure, but cool? I don't know about that. A beast peecee with three big monitors, now that's what I would call cool.
You know, I guess perspective is a big part of it. I'm a mobile person - I'm often at a client, travelling, out with family, etc. - rarely sitting at my desk unless I have something I need to get done there.
The big advancements in mobile technology make all the difference in the world for me.
-
A question about virtual machines:
Lets say you are running Linux, and have a PCI card (or other hardware) installed for which Linux has no drivers (so useless from within Linux). Then you set up a Virtual Machine running Windows XP, and in that virtual machine there are drivers for that PCI card. Can the PCI card be used normally from within that Virtual Machine?
I ask this because I have a semi-pro audio card and graphics tablet for which there might not be Linux drivers. I probably will go dual-boot instaed of VM, but just wanted to get an answer on this question first.
Thanks.
There is some possibility on virtualized systems to pass through direct access to physical hardware. However, it's not automatically flawless as the idea of virtualization was originally to abstract the OS from the actual hardware. I don't think that they've brought this ability to VMWare Workstation but I've had no need for direct hardware acccess other than USB.
VMWAre VSphere 5 server evironment suppors VMDirectPath IO to hardware. It would require additional research to see if VMWare Workstation 10 supported it and your hardware would need to support modern CPU based virtualization technology as well.
So likely dual boot is the option for what you are looking to do.
-Nyle
-Nyle
-
That was my thought exactly. My system is only a P4 with 3GB RAM. Apparently you can download Microsoft's Virtual Machine 2007 and use it in Windows XP, but I don't think a VM is a practical option for me with this system. I'll probably either just make a true partition when I'm ready or install on a USB stick (with the intention of later moving it to a real hard drive partition).
I can't install a dedicated hard drive for Linux because my system already has drives on all the IDE channels/pairs.
Absolutely, using disk imaging you simply clone the installation to a large hard drive and then clone it back onto the physical hard drive. It should pick up the new hardware but you may need to boot off the original install media and run a repair install for it to pick up the new hardware.
I'd use the free Virtual Box or VMWAre Workstation demo.
Though really, I'd play with the OS and wouldn't invest too much time in it before deciding to go dual boot. In other words I don't think I'd spend all the time deploying in detail if you are going to then move off VM.
-
Being a grumpy old man who hates change is no better. The world changes. Don't let yourself get old!
Old Amiga users are becoming what we hated! The grumpy old guys who ran their IBM PCs hated the Amiga and the change it represented. Now grump old guys still using their Amigas are the ones spewing hate for anything different. Go figure!
Uhm, really - don't take one grumpy old guy as speaking for the whole group. I see a lot of positive, constructive advice on this thread. A thread that was simply supposed to be about what someone could do to best experience Linux. It wasn't supposed to be a Linux vs. Windows thread at all. In fact the original poster still plans on running Windows XP. I really only see one "old grumpy guy." I started using AmigaOS in 1988 and still love AmigaOS over all OSs but understand its shortcomings as it currently stands.
However, I use a lot of other OSs and the only thing I speak out against today is vertically integrated monopolies.
Windows XP should really be retired at this point, unless you are running on a machine without an Internet connection and only buy boxed retail software it's really not a good idea to keep running it. If you can't afford Windows 7, then there is every reason to give Linux a try.
I wish I could say the same about AmigaOS but I can't afford the hardware necessary to run it anymore. If they'd port it to x86, I'd buy every version released thereafter.
-
Question still remains - has John even tried Windows 8 yet, or is the incessant badmouthing still based on "facts" garnered from "credible" blogs and stories passed down from the ancients? :) You might not see value in something, but that doesn't make it crap out of the box when there's no facts and actual usage case presented.
As I repeatedly said in prior discussions, I simply didn't have an opportunity to try it. Now I have (I'm having to put up with 8.1 on my work machine at the moment.) Funnily enough, it turns out that all those things that looked like terrible design decisions were actually terrible design decisions. There wasn't some kind of cloud of magical illusion muddling my perceptions of the thing from learning about it secondhand that could only be pierced to see the True Miracle of Windows 8 through firsthand experience, believe it or not! So for the record, everybody: Windows 8/8.1 looks like crap because it is, actually, crap.
Having finally tried it and put an end to the "well, you only hate it because you haven't tried it!" snipes, I now yield the floor to the inevitable chorus of "well, you only hate it because you already decided to hate it!"
When configured in Apps view, I don't consider clicking the "Start" button "using the Metro interface". It's simply a full screen view of all the programs installed on your PC, searchable and easy to find. There are no touch friendly UI elements involved.
It's still a massively space-wasting thing that destroys the advantages of hierarchical organization the Start menu offered. And since it's not even tablet-friendly in that mode, it ditches the advantages of the Start menu for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.
When I say "minor" exceptions I mean things like using the Control Panel to add a user, which requires using the "Metro" interface.
So you only see minor exceptions because you're discounting the major exceptions altogether? Sure, that makes sense.
You may think you're making your point, but you're not - you're making mine. That you are grumpy and too comfortable with how things are and are unwilling or unable to accept change - even if things are better or there are better ways. Please don't take me the wrong way - not trying to be insulting. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but it's not correct to say that things are not improved or better when they clearly are.
I'm still not clear on why I should feel any obligation to "accept change" to begin with, other than that there seems to be a huge contingent of Internet nerds who believe that the Evil Dissidents who Hate Change are Impeding Progress and must be stamped out. But in any case, I'm not blanketly unwilling to adjust to new things; I simply am not willing to put up with stupid bullshít for the sake of improvements to things that were already good enough for my purposes. And you can stamp your foot and say "well, you're just wrong to think that it's stupid!" all you like, and it won't prove a damn thing. Calling my opinions "not correct" doesn't actually make it so, nor does calling me "grumpy" and "unwilling to accept change" change the fact that I arrived at my opinions honestly, first via observation and deduction, and now through direct experience.
But, you know, you just keep insisting that I'm some kind of noophobic Internet Amish. Maybe if you believe hard enough, it'll come true!
(Spoiler: it won't.)
So, you spend all this time organizing and maintaining your Start Menu hierarchy but are unwilling to get use to a few new UI elements that will make your life much easier?
No, I don't spend "all this time." I spend about fifteen seconds when I install a new program, which happens once a week at most. And by doing that, I don't have to wade through a scrolling wasteland of every program on my PC or type in anything to find exactly what I want.
:eek: Really? Multiple displays are so cool that I use an old CRT SVGA monitor as my second display. Anything better than going back to a single monitor. You should try it sometime ;)
I'm not saying multiple displays don't have their uses for some, they just don't fit my workflow.
If you're fighting to stay modern, then what I wonder is: Why bother? Is there anything wrong with being old fashioned if you're not like a grumpy person about it?
He's "fighting to stay modern" because Modernity is a Moral Obligation in the Church of Techno-Futurism. Simple as that.
-
You know, I guess perspective is a big part of it.
Indeed. It's all about what you can make good use of.
If you can't afford Windows 7, then there is every reason to give Linux a try.
I can't afford a Windows upgrade right now (couldn't when I bought my current peecee, either) and I'm simply going to wait until I can afford an upgrade.
Internet Amish
:laughing:
I'm not saying multiple displays don't have their uses for some, they just don't fit my workflow.
No no no. You don't know you need multiple monitors until you've used them ;)
-
I have used them - and I don't need them. If you like 'em, that's great; I just have no use for them.
-
I have used them - and I don't need them. If you like 'em, that's great; I just have no use for them.
Relax, I'm just kidding.
-
:eek: Really? Multiple displays are so cool that I use an old CRT SVGA monitor as my second display. Anything better than going back to a single monitor. You should try it sometime ;)
+1
It's one of those things you wonder how you ever could live without them once you're used to them.
-
Hi guys,
Well, I tried to do a permanent dual boox (XP/Lubuntu) installation of Lubuntu this evening, and I'm sorry to say it did not go smoothly. In fact, I was stumped pretty early into the install process and not able to proceed. I'll explain what happened.
First of all, you need to know that my computer has TWO hard drives installed. A 160GB drive which is my "system" drive. This contains Windows XP. The second drive is a 500GB "media" drive which contains all my projects and large files used when I'm doing video editing and music/audio recording. So the 500GB drive is only for dumping large media files to.
I want to install Lubuntu on the 160GB "system" drive, alongside Windows XP. I would be happy to evenly split the drive between the two operating systems.
When I begin to install Lubuntu, I get this screen (click to enlarge any images in this message):
(http://s3.postimg.org/hsupo9xi7/screen_01.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/hsupo9xi7/)
(this is just a stock screenshot I found on the 'net, but it's pretty much the same as what I'm shown)
So I choose the first option "Install Lubuntu alongside Windows XP..."
But on the next screen it appears that Lubuntu is trying to install itself on my 500GB "media" drive (which I do NOT want).
(http://s27.postimg.org/gqzs7zf27/IM000404.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/gqzs7zf27/)
The drop down bar at the top does not allow me to select any other drive than the one that is showing.
So....I go back one step (to the first screen) and instead choose "Something else".
Now I get this screen, which seems to show all my drives. But it's very confusing and non intuitive. I don't know what to do, and furthermore, I am terrified to try anything for fear of wiping my Windows XP drive completely.
(http://s1.postimg.org/dn5c9zpwr/screen_03.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/dn5c9zpwr/)
So, now I am stuck. Not knowing how to proceed in the installation of Lubuntu.
I consider myself pretty computer savvy (having used computers since 1980) but I find this a little daunting (which is disappointing because I heard Linux was welcoming).
I'm thinking what I want to do can be accomplished through the software installer, but if not, I could shut off the secondary "media" hard drive in the BIOS or just unplug in from the IDE cable and then try the install on the 160GB drive alone.
Can anyone provide any advice? Thanks.
-
Ok. The most simple thing would be to remove the media drive from the equation to limit a potentially nasty incident. This also forces the installer to go for the windows drive.
Asking the installer to do a automatic install is the best way to go if you are not comfortable slicing the drive yourself. And the screenshot 2 is fairly simple to use. You tell it how much of a split you want. There is a little drag bar in the middle that allows you to set the split. Screen shot 3 is the advanced partitioning tool and I don't recommend using it unless you know how it works.
-
Ok. The most simple thing would be to remove the media drive from the equation to limit a potentially nasty incident. This also forces the installer to go for the windows drive.
Well, I disabled the Primary IDE Slave drive in the computer's BIOS, but I guess the Lubuntu installer auto-detected it when booting because exactly the same thing as I explained above is happening again (the simple install option only allows me to choose the 500GB drive as its destination and does not show the 160GB system hard drive I want to install to).
So it looks like I'm going to have to open the computer and physically disconnect the 500GB media drive.
Cracking open the case and fiddling with IDE cables just to install an OS is not my definition of "just works" or "user friendly". I'm discouraged to say that this is not a wholly positive first impression of Linux/Lubuntu.
I hope it gets better.
-
So I choose the first option "Install Lubuntu alongside Windows XP..."
They probably went too far when simplifying the install process? Think about it: you asked the installer to install "alongside" Windows XP", not to replace it - I guess that's why the installer won't let you select the first HD... Bad choice, obviously.
I wouldn't recommend using the partitioning tool if this is your first time installing Linux. It's actually easy to use (you should be familiar with the concept from using the Amiga's HDToolbox) and it will warn you when data gets destroyed - but better be safe than sorry.
I recommend disconnecting the media HD before starting the installation process.
-
Cracking open the case and fiddling with IDE cables just to install an OS is not my definition of "just works" or "user friendly". I'm discouraged to say that this is not a wholly positive first impression of Linux/Lubuntu.
I agree to a certain extent - your setup could have been handled better. But keep in mind that...
1. you could have solved the problem using the installer, if you had used the partitioning tool
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned ;)
-
What you want to do is pick something else.
On the next screen select: New Partition
You should be able to figure out where you want the partition. Use the mouse for that.
Select: /
(that means root) as the mount point and ext4 filing system.
Skip the swap partition for now.
It won't actually format the partition until you start the Linux install.
Click back if you didn't get it right and your partitions will be unharmed. Then click the manual partitioning again and have another go.
I say leave the drive in, but don't proceed until you are sure the partitions are correct.
-
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned ;)
To play devil's advocate I was going to say exactly the same thing, you beat me to it. I don't even know what all the versions of Windows installs allow, but if anything I might guess MS would go out of its way to find and erase the competition off the drive :P.
If anything I think Linux probably has had to go out of its way to handle multi-boot as possible given its circumstances. That said I agree it does seem a bit confusing for your situation, which is a bummer. That's why I'm just sticking with running it off a USB stick, I see no disadvantage to it so far for what I need.
-
I agree to a certain extent - your setup could have been handled better. But keep in mind that...
1. you could have solved the problem using the installer, if you had used the partitioning tool
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned ;)
Number 2 is an utter falsehood. I have several systems at home that have Windows 7 installed along side Linux. In fact, the Toshiba laptop I'm using to post this message is triple boot. It boots Windows 7, Ubuntu 13, and OSX 10.8.5
The easiest way to install Linux alongside Windows without all the partitioning and @ss pain of losing or accidentally formatting your non-Linux partitions is to use WUBI. See: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/windows-installer
Officially WUBI only supports Ubuntu 12.04 but I've used it on later versions of Linux without any issues.
WUBI leaves your Windows partition intact and put the linux filesystem into a loop-file on your NTFS drive/partition so there's no need to re-partition and risk losing your other operating systems.
-
Number 2 is an utter falsehood. I have several systems at home that have Windows 7 installed along side Linux. In fact, the Toshiba laptop I'm using to post this message is triple boot. It boots Windows 7, Ubuntu 13, and OSX 10.8.5
The easiest way to install Linux alongside Windows without all the partitioning and @ss pain of losing or accidentally formatting your non-Linux partitions is to use WUBI. See: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/windows-installer
Officially WUBI only supports Ubuntu 12.04 but I've used it on later versions of Linux without any issues.
WUBI leaves your Windows partition intact and put the linux filesystem into a loop-file on your NTFS drive/partition so there's no need to re-partition and risk losing your other operating systems.
I concur , I have done this several times in the past both with and without using Wubi. Usually the "alongside" windows thing just works (tm) its only if you have a multi-drive configuration that it can get a bit confusing.
2 points
1) If not using "wubi" the order is important. If you install Linux alongside windows and windows is the thing you install after Linux - it will rewrite the boot sector and you wont be able to get to your linux partition. (This can be fixed be re-installing GRUB)
2) Wubi works really well - I've read that I/O performance is degraded by doing it this way, although in practice i cant say i've noticed it!
These days i keep a windows install on a separate hardrive for the express purpose of updating TomTom every now and again. Other than that my machines are all running dedicated Ubuntu.
-
Within the "Something Else" installation option, here is what you want to do:
1) Select the current Windows partition (/dev/sda1).
2) Click "Change..."
3) You will need to shrink your Windows partition to make room for a Linux partition. Enter a new size for your Windows partition. Based on how much space you've used (almost 30 GB), you could safely shrink it down to 60 GB (60000 MB) and have plenty of room to spare.
4) After the /dev/sda1 partition has been shrunk, you will now see a new option in the list: "free space". Select this option, then click the plus icon to add a new partition in the free space, and give it the following options:
Type: Primary
New partition size: just accept whatever's here (it will be all your available free space)
Use as: Ext4 journaling file system
Mount point: / (you can select it from the drop-down menu)
Then click OK. Your new partition will show up as "/dev/sda2" alongside your Windows partition on "/dev/sda1", and you can proceed to "Install Now".
Good luck :)
-
Within the "Something Else" installation option, here is what you want to do:
1) Select the current Windows partition (/dev/sda1).
2) Click "Change..."
3) You will need to shrink your Windows partition to make room for a Linux partition. Enter a new size for your Windows partition. Based on how much space you've used (almost 30 GB), you could safely shrink it down to 60 GB (60000 MB) and have plenty of room to spare.
4) After the /dev/sda1 partition has been shrunk, you will now see a new option in the list: "free space". Select this option, then click the plus icon to add a new partition in the free space, and give it the following options:
Type: Primary
New partition size: just accept whatever's here (it will be all your available free space)
Use as: Ext4 journaling file system
Mount point: / (you can select it from the drop-down menu)
Then click OK. Your new partition will show up as "/dev/sda2" alongside your Windows partition on "/dev/sda1", and you can proceed to "Install Now".
Good luck :)
This is the most helpful reply so far. Thanks. But what does...
Mount point: / (you can select it from the drop-down menu)
....mean? I can select what, exactly, from the drop down menu? I have no idea what a "mount point" is, so I'm not going to know what to choose.
Thanks.
-
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned ;)
It's just a pity for your argument that it was Linux that was causing the problem. It sounds like you'd defend Linux to the end.
-
/
It just means the root of the drive. As opposed to a folder in the drive e.g.
/mystuff (the mystuff folder)
Equivalent to C:
by itself or C:\mystuff\
-
God Forbid you just click the one radio box in Windows 8 that lets you avoid 99% of the "Metro" features to begin with, John. :)
Irony is, I'd be willing to wager fair money you wouldn't know the difference between a desktop-only W8 setup (again, ONE CLICK REQUIRED! for boot to desktop mode, avoiding your Pure Evil aversion to Metro) vs. a Windows 7 box if you plunked yourself in front of each of 'em.
There was a lot to gripe about in the early days of Windows 8, and it's still not perfect. But all in all, I've found it wholly faster and more stable than 7 - and that's saying a lot. On average, my Windows 7 boxes only get rebooted once every 3-4 months, tops - and I can count the crashes I've had on them on one hand since the day W7 launched.
My one remaining XP machine, which I'm forced to use because my work apps are old and crusty and require XP, they crash multiple times a week.
But I digress, this is a Linux thread (another super OS in itself) - don't let me put throw a wrench in your alternate reality field :)
-
Number 2 is an utter falsehood. I have several systems at home that have Windows 7 installed along side Linux.
I was talking about installing Windows without having your existing operating systems wiped off the disk - which isn't possible.
It's just a pity for your argument that it was Linux that was causing the problem. It sounds like you'd defend Linux to the end.
I wasn't making an argument, I was joking. You know, I tried to illustrate that by putting a smilie behind it - stupid me.
ral-clan was disappointed with his his very first Linux experience - I'm simply trying to put that in context. Yeah, that was a (minor) bug, but a slight inconvenience while doing things that Windows can't do at all isn't exactly a reason to ditch Linux.
Maybe he should try reinstalling WIndows XP on his 160 GB HD (it doesn't even support 160 GB out of the box, does it?) to realize what he's been putting up with so far :)
(psxphill: that last paragraph was another joke)
-
Maybe he should try reinstalling WIndows XP on his 160 GB HD
What they should do is make two partitions on that 160 GB HD, install WinXP on one of those partitions, and after that Linux on the other. Problem solved.
(it doesn't even support 160 GB out of the box, does it?)
Of course it does, why wouldn't it? I have two HDs in my peecee. One 0.5 TB, the other 1 TB. Works just fine with WinXP. I think WinXP supports 2 TB out of the box actually.
-
This is the most helpful reply so far. Thanks. But what does...
....mean? I can select what, exactly, from the drop down menu? I have no idea what a "mount point" is, so I'm not going to know what to choose.
Thanks.
What he means is this. Mount point simply means what you want the partition to do. In linux you can have multiple partitions all doing their own job but still be part of the the whole system. So you can have one simply for /home which is where you store all your personal stuff. Check out this link. (http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/35676/how-to-choose-a-partition-scheme-for-your-linux-pc/)
(http://i.imgur.com/RqLZIR5.png)
When you double click a partition, or create a new partition, it comes up with a dialog box (see above) with some options in it. Set one to EXT 4 (this is the file system) then click format then set mount point to / (root). This will configure the partition to be used for everything to do with the OS.
(http://i.imgur.com/gVxNOYG.png)
This is how my current setup looks. I have just opted to keep things simple considering I have a secondary HDD for backups and such. As you can see I shrunk the Windows 8 parition down and created a 8gb swap partition and the the rest I used as /.
Sorry my earlier post wasn't more helpful. It was something like 2:30am and my brain was fuzzy after getting up to feed my daughter. Basically what I was aiming to say was simply that having 2 or more HDDs can make it a touch more difficult. The installer, from the pics you posted showed, thought it would be more appropriate to shrink the spare HDD and allocate space to Linux on there. Thus preserving the Windows HDD. The drop down at the top would have let you select your primary HDD and do it from there anyway.
The installer is easy if you let it help you. But, much like Windows, if you have multiple HDD's it can make the process a touch more complicated or if you're wanting to do a dual boot situation. My suggestion to remove the backup HDD from the equation was simply a suggestion. I just know from personal experiences what it is like as a new Linux user to try and install it. It's not difficult, especially with the mordern *buntu installer, but it can be a bit of a learning experience.
-
What they should do is make two partitions on that 160 GB HD, install WinXP on one of those partitions, and after that Linux on the other. Problem solved.
That's more or less what he's doing (shrink the Windows XP partition without data loss, install Lubuntu in the free space).
Of course it does, why wouldn't it?
I'm really not an expert on Windows, but the way I remember it the original Windows XP had a 128 GB limit. If your install CD already contains SP1, you should be fine, but I think you couldn't create partitions bigger than 128 GB otherwise, you had to 'fix' them with partition magic later on, IIRC.
I might remember it wrong, and it's only become an issue because people had to use XP for so long, my apologies for bringing it up. Let's go back on topic and discuss the merits and problems of WIndows 8.1 please ;)
-
That's more or less what he's doing (shrink the Windows XP partition without data loss, install Lubuntu in the free space).
Should do the job :)
I'm really not an expert on Windows, but the way I remember it the original Windows XP had a 128 GB limit. If your install CD already contains SP1, you should be fine, but I think you couldn't create partitions bigger than 128 GB otherwise, you had to 'fix' them with partition magic later on, IIRC.
Really? Didn't know that. My install disk has SP2 on it, so I've never had any issues with HD sizes.
-
...The easiest way to install Linux alongside Windows without all the partitioning and @ss pain of losing or accidentally formatting your non-Linux partitions is to use WUBI. See: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/windows-installer
Officially WUBI only supports Ubuntu 12.04 but I've used it on later versions of Linux without any issue...
Yep, best reply so far. WUBI is too cool. Install Ubuntu from within Windows. Painless and easy.
-
God Forbid you just click the one radio box in Windows 8 that lets you avoid 99% of the "Metro" features to begin with, John. :)
Irony is, I'd be willing to wager fair money you wouldn't know the difference between a desktop-only W8 setup (again, ONE CLICK REQUIRED! for boot to desktop mode, avoiding your Pure Evil aversion to Metro) vs. a Windows 7 box if you plunked yourself in front of each of 'em.
Right, I totally wouldn't know the difference if one option was selected, until any time I wanted to pull up the Start menu, which is often. Sure could fool me for all of about fifteen seconds! Geez. I suppose it's only to be expected that with your standard dismissal gone you'd fall back on this kind of weaksauce response...
But I digress, this is a Linux thread (another super OS in itself) - don't let me put throw a wrench in your alternate reality field :)
I wasn't the one who brought up Windows 8 in this thread - direct your bítching about that at Kremlar.
-
Irony is, I'd be willing to wager fair money you wouldn't know the difference between a desktop-only W8 setup (again, ONE CLICK REQUIRED! for boot to desktop mode, avoiding your Pure Evil aversion to Metro) vs. a Windows 7 box if you plunked yourself in front of each of 'em.
Windows 8 desktop is flat, dull, and lifeless, and is missing many of the advanced desktop customization features of Windows 7. Just look for right-click -> Personalize -> Window Color -> Advanced appearance settings, which gives you a whole host of customization features, and have been stripped from W8. Personally I like the 3D, transparent look of Aero, and all its associated features. I would think as an Amigan the first thing you'd notice is the lack of customization in W8. But to each their own, I suppose. ;)
...we actually use this at our office, as part of standard setup for all workstations the appearance is tweaked to best benefit of icon spacing across our multi-monitor desktops. I'm sure this functionality could be duplicated by a 3rd party add-on in W8, but why strip basic features from the OS like this?
-
Ral-clan, I feel like you've had a lot of info thrown at you, much of it conflicting. I wanted to just summarize a few things for you based on my years of using Linux as my primary OS.
**Distros**
Everybody has their favorite, and no doubt you've heard countless recommendations. My suggestion is to stick with the Ubuntu family when starting out. It's the best supported, and help is easy to find. Mint is not a bad option either, since it is based on Ubuntu and is compatible with all of the same software. If you want to do more exploring later, there are a crap ton of distros out there.
The Ubuntu family of OS's all run from the same software repository (where your programs are pulled from when you install them from the software center), and can run all of the same software. The main difference is the desktop environment that is used. Here is a rundown of the different Ubuntu flavors:
1. Ubuntu: Uses the Unity desktop. This desktop is modern with an eye toward convergence (works well on netbooks, as well as full-blown desktop systems. Might be a bit sluggish on older PCs, especially those with older graphics cards and single-core CPUs. This is probably the most polished out-of-the-box Linux experience of all the Ubuntu variants, and the version I always recommend as a starting point if a person's computer is modern enough for it to run crisply.
2. Kubuntu: Uses the KDE desktop. This is my preferred desktop environment, because it is super-configurable, and the desktop default tools (file manager, text editor, etc.) are the best in their class, IMO. KDE uses up a fair amount of RAM, and while it can be sluggish on older PCs, is quite configurable in its system usage.
3. Xubuntu: Uses the XFCE desktop. This is my preferred desktop for older PCs. It uses more RAM than Lubuntu, but otherwise is much more fully-featured and easily configurable. The applications run quite speedy on a system like what you are using. LXDE's control panel and file manager, etc. are all quite good. On systems with slow graphics cards, turning off "compositing" (which is what draws shadows and transparency effects) will give you a nice performance boost. I'm really surprised that nobody has mentioned Xubuntu as an option for you, as I think it would be a more ideal balance of features/resource consumption for your particular PC.
4. Lubuntu: This is the lightest-weight Ubuntu variant. Personally, I miss a lot of the features and ease of configurability of other desktops, particularly XFCE and KDE. With Lubuntu, certain things aren't as easily changed without editing config files, etc, whereas XFCE has more point-and click configuration options. That being said, none of the other options will be more spry than Lubuntu.
Another note: Only Ubuntu and Xubuntu feature the official "Ubuntu Software Center" application. The other flavors have their own "software center" apps, which don't seem to handle getting paid applications as well. You can install the official "Ubuntu Software Center" on the other desktop environments, but you may run into issues with this (screenshots not showing up, etc.).
My personal recommendation for your setup would be Xubuntu.
**LTS vs. 6-month releases**
If you prefer stability, you're probably best off only installing/upgrading to LTS (long-term support) versions of the Ubuntu OS's. If you prefer to live on the "bleeding edge" and always have the latest software and tools, then you may prefer to use the 6-month releases. The next LTS will be coming out this month. After you upgrade from your current version to this month's release, you have the option of leaving that install in place and not upgrading until the next LTS is released in two years, or upgrading every six months to the latest version. In my experience, sticking with the LTS is the best option, because although upgrades usually go smoothly, things can go wrong or break during an upgrade, and by sticking with the LTS, you are giving yourself better odds that something won't get hosed. What do I mean by "hosed"? Well, most commonly: driver issues, especially for proprietary hardware, meaning research into why my wireless is no longer working, for example. Not trying to scare you, but it can happen, and it's less likely to happen with the LTS releases.
If you are intrigued by the greater stability of LTS releases, but want to stay with the very latest updates of certain programs (beyond the security updates that Ubuntu officially creates), it is easy to find and add PPA's, which are additional software repositories, usually created for people who want to keep up with the latest developments in a particular piece of software.
All in all, enjoy the experience of exploring something new. Expect there to be a lot to learn. Don't expect everything to go perfectly, and remember: All OS's suck. They all have their strengths, weaknesses, and unique ways of making you want to put a hole through your wall ;) What is going to be best for you comes down to which battles you're willing to fight. When a Linux system is running well, it will be the smoothest sailing you'll ever know, if your experience is anything like mine. I've also had my fair share of problems over the years, but in every case, I have learned something that has empowered me, and at this point, I am never worried about ending up in a situation that I can't get out of.
-
Lets leave Windows and other NON LINUX operating systems out of this thread. I'll just delete the ones from here on out that are anything but Linux.
-
Ral-clan, I feel like you've had a lot of info thrown at you, much of it conflicting. I wanted to just summarize a few things for you based on my years of using Linux as my primary OS.
Thanks, Mr. Bumpy. That was a very informative and plain-spoken posting. I definitely came out of it knowing more about Linux.
-
What he means is this. Mount point simply means what you want the partition to do. In linux you can have multiple partitions all doing their own job but still be part of the the whole system. So you can have one simply for /home which is where you store all your personal stuff.
CriteAnime, thanks so much. I understand I need to first shrink my Windows XP partition with gparted and then create a partition for Linux. But what I don't quite get is: do I have to create three separate partitions? One for "root", one for "/home" and one for "swap"?
If I just shrink the XP partition with gparted and leave the rest of the disk "blank" (free - no defined partition), can't the Lubuntu installer handle that automatically?
I'm really not sure how to properly create the three root/home/swap partitions for my Lubuntu installation - or even if I need to. And if I do, how will the Lubuntu installer know how to use the three partitions I create?
I also noticed your Linux partition seems to be "logical" rather than "primary". Why did you choose this, and what should I choose? That's confusing for me.
-
If I just shrink the XP partition with gparted and leave the rest of the disk "blank" (free - no defined partition), can't the Lubuntu installer handle that automatically?
It should.
-
I'm really not sure how to properly create the three root/home/swap partitions for my Lubuntu installation - or even if I need to. And if I do, how will the Lubuntu installer know how to use the three partitions I create?
Once you have assigned a mount point to a partition (in your case "/"), it will be used. If you create a swap partition, it will be used automatically. A swap partition is optional. It is used as "virtual memory", when you run out of physical RAM. It is also used for hibernation, assuming you've created a swap partition that's at least as 1.5 x the amount of RAM in your system.
I also noticed your Linux partition seems to be "logical" rather than "primary". Why did you choose this, and what should I choose? That's confusing for me.
Hard drives can only have a maximum of four actual (primary) partitions. If you need more partitions, then you make one of the four partitions (usually the last one) an "extended partition" and then you can create "logical volumes" within the extended partition to get more than four total partitions on the drive. Confusing, eh?
In your case, you would only have two partitions: Windows (/dev/sda1, NTFS), Linux (/dev/sda2, ext4). Or if you wanted to create a swap partition as well, then you'd have three. Either way, you should create them all as primary partitions.
-
I'm really not sure how to properly create the three root/home/swap partitions for my Lubuntu installation - or even if I need to. And if I do, how will the Lubuntu installer know how to use the three partitions I create?
Once you have assigned a mount point to a partition (in your case "/"), it will be used. If you create a swap partition, it will be used automatically. A swap partition is optional. It is used as "virtual memory", when you run out of physical RAM. It is also used for hibernation, assuming you've created a swap partition that's at least as 1.5 x the amount of RAM in your system.
Creating a separate /home partition is also optional. Just a quick lesson on the Linux file system: Linux doesn't use drive letters like Windows does. All of the files available to a Linux system are accessible within a single directory tree. The very first folder (the one that contains everything else) is called "root" and is represented by "/". Within "/" will be a number of other folders, including "/etc", "/home", "/usr" and a bunch more. All of your personal data and configuration is placed in the home folder ("/home"). The benefit to having "/home" on its own partition is that your personal data and configuration are kept separate from the rest of the system, making it easier to reinstall/change the OS without having to first move your personal data.
Considering the size of your hard drive, you may be better off not creating a separate home partition. It will also be simpler :)
I also noticed your Linux partition seems to be "logical" rather than "primary". Why did you choose this, and what should I choose? That's confusing for me.
Hard drives can only have a maximum of four actual (primary) partitions. If you need more partitions, then you make one of the four partitions (usually the last one) an "extended partition" and then you can create "logical volumes" within the extended partition to get more than four total partitions on the drive. Confusing, eh?
In your case, you would only have two partitions: Windows (/dev/sda1, NTFS), Linux (/dev/sda2, ext4). Or if you wanted to create a swap partition as well, then you'd have three. Either way, you should create them all as primary partitions.
-
I was talking about installing Windows without having your existing operating systems wiped off the disk - which isn't possible.
I wasn't making an argument, I was joking. You know, I tried to illustrate that by putting a smilie behind it - stupid me.
ral-clan was disappointed with his his very first Linux experience - I'm simply trying to put that in context. Yeah, that was a (minor) bug, but a slight inconvenience while doing things that Windows can't do at all isn't exactly a reason to ditch Linux.
Maybe he should try reinstalling WIndows XP on his 160 GB HD (it doesn't even support 160 GB out of the box, does it?) to realize what he's been putting up with so far :)
(psxphill: that last paragraph was another joke)
Again, you're spreading falsehoods. Yes, it is possible and it's done all the time. I have several systems that have Linux AND Windows installed together on different as well as the same boot drives. Stop spreading false info. Linux coexists quite nicely with all of my systems!
-
It's very simple to install Linux and Windows to the same drive on different partitions, lol.
Machine I am on right now has Ubuntu on one partition, Windows on the other, on the same physical drive. Boot menu comes up when the machine starts, I select my OS du jour, easy peasy.
-
Again, you're spreading falsehoods.
Of course you can install Windows after Linux (the "after" part being my whole point) - if you're willing to create the necessary partitions from within Linux and manually restore and modify the Master Boot Record after installing Windows. But I wouldn't call that "Windows offering the same install options as Linux", so I jokingly told ral-clan he shouldn't blame Linux for not being user friendly.
Better now?
-
Mr_bumpy's post sums up partitioning far better than what I could Ral-Clan. But to simplify things lets look at the last bit.
In your case, you would only have two partitions: Windows (/dev/sda1, NTFS), Linux (/dev/sda2, ext4). Or if you wanted to create a swap partition as well, then you'd have three. Either way, you should create them all as primary partitions.
To put this into context take a look at how my primary HDD it partitioned.
(http://i.imgur.com/gVxNOYG.png)
This is a similar setup as the kind you would be aiming for. Because I am using Windows 8 I am pushing the limits in terms of how many partitions I can have on one drive, Windows 8 keeps a partition for tools and some system backup stuff. If I would have any more, I considered a /home at some point on this install, I would need a container (extended) partition. However like you I have a secondary HDD I can dump files on for a backup anyway so a dedicated /home is not needed. Thus all partitions can remain primary.
Swap, as Mr Bumpy pointed out, is not needed. Yes the installer will complain about there been no swap but you just tell it that this is fine and it installs. Personally I have always kept a swap because this is what I did back in the day when RAM limitations were a issue. And it's a habbit I just keep. :lol: But it really is not a necessity to have it.
-
Hi Guys!
Thanks for all the help understanding Linux partitions. Although I could have gone this way (and the info will be useful in the future), I instead did the simplest thing and just disconnected the 500GB "media" drive from my system while installing Lubuntu.
The Lubuntu installer then proceeded normally, allowing me to partition my 160GB "OS" hard drive. So now I have a dual-boot Windows XP / Lubuntu system! Yay!
I'm posting this from the Lubuntu OS right now.
So, now that I've gotten this far, the first thing I want to do is do a backup before I start trying to install custom drivers for my hardware and screw things up. But, I've never backed up a dual OS system before. I am going to need some advice on the best backup strategy.
When I only had Windows XP - I used Nero Backitup to make an image of my entire C: drive to an external USB drive. Now that I have two OS partitions to backup, I'm not sure if Nero will be able to handle the Linux OS partition (as Nero runs within Windows).
Is there anything people really like? Should I just image the whole 160GB drive in one bit image, or backup/image the each OS partitions separately? If separately, is there a way to do this that will preserve the GRUB/MBR early boot utility or whatever (I don't really understand it yet).
Is there anything that will run from a live CD and backup to an external USB drive?
Thanks.
-
Your system should have a backup tool already installed. http://www.howtogeek.com/108869/how-to-back-up-ubuntu-the-easy-way-with-dj-dup/
it is built into the system so just nerd configuring. If not i beleive its easy enough to just grab from the "app store". Its what i use.
-
Of course you can install Windows after Linux (the "after" part being my whole point) - if you're willing to create the necessary partitions from within Linux and manually restore and modify the Master Boot Record after installing Windows. But I wouldn't call that "Windows offering the same install options as Linux", so I jokingly told ral-clan he shouldn't blame Linux for not being user friendly.
Better now?
No, you're still spreading falsehoods. Every system I have in my home had Windows installed first, and then I installed Linux. No reformatting or creating new partitions or manually modifying the MBR was required.
-
Your system should have a backup tool already installed. http://www.howtogeek.com/108869/how-to-back-up-ubuntu-the-easy-way-with-dj-dup/
it is built into the system so just nerd configuring. If not i beleive its easy enough to just grab from the "app store". Its what i use.
I believe ral-clan was looking for a way to backup his entire OS partition, in which case he would need to use something like a Clonezilla LiveCD (http://clonezilla.org/). However, the Nero Backitup software might support Linux partitions (I found some mentions online about it), but I'm not sure if your version will support ext4. You may need to check with the Nero Backitup documentation about that.
Anyway, I use Clonezilla personally, and it works great. You will want to follow the documentation when you do it for the first time, but after that, it's pretty easy to remember the steps.
-
Ah yeah. Sorry at work and its silly oclock in the morning. clonezilla is needed for backing up everything, and it's very effective because I too have used it. For some reason i thought he just wanted files.
Actually thinking about it. Setting up the inbuilt backup system as a redundent is not a bad idea. I use it and it's handy to keep. Even if he takes advantage of using a service like box or Ubuntu 1 to host the backup on the cloud.
Actually scrap using Ubuntu 1 as they are shutting that cloud service down (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/04/canonical-axe-ubuntu-one-file-music-services-grab-data-now) so stick to Dropbox or Box lol.
-
No, you're still spreading falsehoods. Every system I have in my home had Windows installed first, and then I installed Linux.
This is now the fourth (and definitely the last) time that I tell you I'm talking about the other case where one is trying to install Windows after Linux.
Please read what you're replying to, it would have saved both of us quite some time.
-
This thread is out of control.
Ral-clan - Good luck. If you need any assistance, PM me, maybe I can help you out if you need it.
-
another great piece of backup software is Mondo Rescue. I back up entire servers and my laptop to make a bootable set of dvds to restore from.
-
another great piece of backup software is Mondo Rescue. I back up entire servers and my laptop to make a bootable set of dvds to restore from.
Good because Clonezilla fails for some reason, despite the fact that I'm following all online tutorials to a "T".
-
Canonical is working on a touch friendly Ubuntu.
-
Just out of curiosity doesn't CloneZilla as a last ditch attampt also use
dd if=/dev/source of=/dev/destination if it's normal backup system fails? Or did I dream that one lol.
-
Good because Clonezilla fails for some reason, despite the fact that I'm following all online tutorials to a "T".
Where does it fail? Are you backing up to an external hard drive? Are you using the i386 or amd64 version of the Clonezilla liveCD? I've had problems before with the amd64 version on my laptop. Otherwise, the i386 version works perfectly on both of my systems.
-
This is now the fourth (and definitely the last) time that I tell you I'm talking about the other case where one is trying to install Windows after Linux.
Please read what you're replying to, it would have saved both of us quite some time.
Take at least some solace cgutjahr that I understood what you were talking about. I felt for you getting trashed by the same camp you were trying to stick up for in multiple posts :confused:. Indeed sometimes people must just scan a few keywords in a paragraph and not be clued in to what they are responding to :rtfm:. I was guilty of something similar on another board recently that looked like someone was rewriting quotes of mine and I went off, boy did I ever feel stupid and bad and apologize profusely after I went back and read everything correctly :(. I'm just going blame that on gettin' old and dense in the head ...
-
Where does it fail? Are you backing up to an external hard drive? Are you using the i386 or amd64 version of the Clonezilla liveCD? I've had problems before with the amd64 version on my laptop. Otherwise, the i386 version works perfectly on both of my systems.
Hi,
It fails somewhere after reading the first Windows XP partition....says something about partclone failing. Tried running it twice. Followed online tutorials to do this.
It's a x86 version. Backing up to an external hard drive. I thought it *might* be an issue with the external drive having not enough space, but I had zip compression turned on, so it shouldn't have been a problem. I'm backing up a 160GB hard drive to an external USB 160GB hard drive with about 90MB free. But the source 160GB hard drive containing my OSes is only really filled up about 30% (about 56GB of data)....so it should all fit.
-
The only thing I can think of is perhaps you need to run a chkdsk on the NTFS drive. Have you booted into Windows since resizing the partition? It will usually run chkdsk automatically when booting when it discovers the partition size has changed.
-
The only thing I can think of is perhaps you need to run a chkdsk on the NTFS drive. Have you booted into Windows since resizing the partition? It will usually run chkdsk automatically when booting when it discovers the partition size has changed.
Yeah, I ran a chkdsk before re-partitioning, and once I partitioned, I booted in Windows XP and it automatically ran a chkdsk. I've booted into Windows several times since (and before trying to back up with CloneZilla).
Since Clonezilla didn't work, I tried my old backup software, Nero Backitup Essentials (a basic OEM version that came with my DVD-writer and runs in windows or from a bootable recovery CD). It's always worked well when backing up my Windows XP partition.
It also seems to recognize the file system on the linux partition (it shows a graphic diagram of the disk structure and identifies the Windows partion as NTFS, the Linux partition as ext3 or something (I can't remember)). It also identifies another undesignated 3GB partition on the disk (not sure what that is).
I've used it now to backup both the Windows XP and Linux partitions individually, and then the whole drive (imaging the drive).
Before backing Linux partition it does warn that since the partition doesn't have a Drive Letter, it can't lock the partition during backup. However it will still proceed and does successfully verify the backup image file against the real partition.
As I said, I've also used it to "image" the whole 160GB drive (Windows XP / Linux / undesignated partitions) all together. Since Nero Backitup is a Windows program, and I'm booting from the Windows XP partition, it warns again that it won't be able to lock the Windows partition as it is in use. But again, it backs up the whole drive. I know in the past when I've had to restore my Windows XP setup from these backups it has worked fine.
Nero Backitup Essentials is pretty easy to use and even allows the making of a bootable live restore CD (which I've done and had to use in the past).
So I hope I'm covered.
-
It also identifies another undesignated 3GB partition on the disk (not sure what that is).
Linux uses a separate partition called "swap" or "swap space" for saving virtual memory to disk. This results in better performance, and said partition can not be invalidated since no filesystem is involved.
So I hope I'm covered.
I don't have experience with backing up multi boot setups. But as far as Linux is covered, backing up your home directory (/home/USERNAME/) usually means everything you want to keep is save. You can (re)install Linux or install it on a different computer and after copying back the contents of your home directory, everything is set up the way it used to be. You'll have to reinstall the additional applications you were using of course, but their configurations have been preserved aswell.
(Most of these important config files and directories are hidden files starting with a dot. navigate to your home directory and press Control-H to see them)
-
Hey ral-clan,
I know this was previously mentioned, but one of the UNIX ways of backing up drives is to use Disk Dump or dd.
Open a terminal, and type gparted, then when you get the partition number for your NTFS partition (/dev/sda# if SATA/SCSI or /dev/hda# if IDE) then close out and drop back to the shell.
Type the following:
$ mkdir ~/backups
$ dd if=$yourpartition# of=~/backups/$backupname bs=4096 conv=noerror
Example:
$ dd if=/dev/sda2 of=~/backups/archbang20140407 bs=4096 conv=noerrorThis will copy a disk image equal to size of your partition to a directory called backups in your home directory.
It takes awhile but this method has a few benefits:
1. If you lose all your data or mess up that partition, setting up a new partition then running dd to copy the data back (if is the source and of is the destination, so you can do it backwards) this will result in a (mostly) turnkey solution, assuming your bootloader is already setup
2. The image you made COULD be run in a VM if needed.
3. You can restore the image from any UNIX system, this command will work on Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X, and apparently there is a dd port for Windows too, never used it myself, however.
-
This is now the fourth (and definitely the last) time that I tell you I'm talking about the other case where one is trying to install Windows after Linux.
Please read what you're replying to, it would have saved both of us quite some time.
UH, but that is the DUMB way to do it.
Windows or OSX first, then Linux, because those first two OS' aren't smart enough to co-exist with something else.
-
Hey ral-clan,
I know this was previously mentioned, but one of the UNIX ways of backing up drives is to use Disk Dump or dd.
Thanks, Teamblackfox. That was informative. I've got a lot to learn, but Linux is obviously very powerful once you've mastered the terminal.
-
UH, but that is the DUMB way to do it.
Windows or OSX first, then Linux, because those first two OS' aren't smart enough to co-exist with something else.
It's not dumb. All you need to do is reinstall grub, if you have a problem doing that then Linux is not for you.
http://askubuntu.com/questions/83771/recovering-grub-after-installing-windows-7
-
This is now the fourth (and definitely the last) time that I tell you I'm talking about the other case where one is trying to install Windows after Linux.
Please read what you're replying to, it would have saved both of us quite some time.
No, you weren't talking about trying to install Windows AFTER Linux. You made earlier statements that it was impossible to have Windows and Linux coexist on the same system at all. Then, after being confronted by more than one person that you were incorrect, you started changing your story. Now you're changing it again.
Care to go for five now?
-
A boot repair use to be: FDISK and edit config.sys
Though Windows really gets surly when there is more than one drive. It has written the MBR on the spare drive on several occasions. I don't know why.
edit: I just found an answer. You change the drive order in the BIOS.
-
You made earlier statements that it was impossible to have Windows and Linux coexist on the same system at all.
My first post in this thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=761285&postcount=14) says: "Ubuntu can also be installed in parallel to an existing Windows install, without having to reformat your existing harddisk partitions".
Not sure what thread you're reading, certainly not this one.
-
My first post in this thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=761285&postcount=14) says: "Ubuntu can also be installed in parallel to an existing Windows install, without having to reformat your existing harddisk partitions".
Not sure what thread you're reading, certainly not this one.
Yes, I'm reading this thread quite well and on page 14 here's what you had to say about Linux and Windows being unable to coexist:
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned.
-
Because Linux is pretty light on resources you should be able to run it happily in a VM on a low end core i3 or perhaps even lower end.
(http://www.wcvb.com/image/view/-/11999892/medRes/2/-/maxh/358/maxw/538/-/45kyn9/-/glue-jpg.png)
-
Ops system is a p4 without any virtualisation extensions. So it would be very unlikely that a system would run smoothly under vm.
But yes the Linux kernel is light. The stuff that's attached to it is what takes resources. I don't know if it's true still but at one bit you could have a Linux kernel running off a floppy.
-
Ops system is a p4 without any virtualisation extensions. So it would be very unlikely that a system would run smoothly under vm.
But yes the Linux kernel is light. The stuff that's attached to it is what takes resources. I don't know if it's true still but at one bit you could have a Linux kernel running off a floppy.
It's true as long as:
1) You can still boot floppies
2) You compile a kernel with disabled built-int features (most of the kernel built-in hardware support won't be used in your computer EVER, anyway)
3) You minimize the external modules to these you really need.
-
@ral-clan
I am doing the same for now.
My main pc has Win XP pro but I intend to upgrade it to Win 7 Pro. I am concerned whether or not XP compatibility mode will really work with some of my older software. The other concern is there are no Win 7 drivers only Win Vista 32/64bit drivers. It seems from what I read in various forums and articles Vista drivers often work in Win 7 but not always. It is an older Compaq Presario I bought used for good price in 2008 at a pawnshop (not where I normally by used PC’s) It originally came with Windows Vista Home Premium but who ever pawned it had stripped that off and put a 30 day trial of Win Vista Basic, which already expired! I intended to install XP pro anyway so I bought it for the hardware. I am hoping the Vista drivers work or better yet Win 7 SP1 will find all of the hardware and the only thing I will have to install is the nVidia driver.
My Ubuntu experience:
In the mean time like others I trying Ubuntu mainly for my internet and emails. It ran fine from the DVD, very slow to load of course. Instillation went smooth until it was time to restart when Ubuntu froze. I had walked away for a while and when I came back it had gone into a sleep mode while the restart dialog box was up. Maybe that had some bearing on it. Anyway I powered it off and back on expecting to see a Grub screen, and…. Nothing! Straight to Windows XP wanting to run a check disk on the partition I installed Ubuntu. at least what Win XP could still see. After some quick research I downloaded the Linux Grub/MBR boot repair ISO image. Rebooted with it and ran the fix utility. That did the trick! I now had a dual boot XP/Ubuntu machine.
Notice I say the word “had”. I just could not leave well enough alone. I thought hey lets install a Linux nVidia driver which screwed it all up. I got stuck in an endless loop of low graphics mode message. I could not even click on or tab to the OK button. I tried the Ubuntu recovery mode and steps I read to fix the issue but it didn’t work. To sum it up I had to delete the partition and use the Win install disk/Recovery console to fix the MBR. Then use a third party partition software to reclaim and stitch the lost partition back to the second partition. Whew! Lesson learned! Leave it be! Ubuntu works just fine without me mucking it up. I will try re-installing it tomorrow.
-
I am hoping the Vista drivers work or better yet Win 7 SP1 will find all of the hardware and the only thing I will have to install is the nVidia driver.
The Vista to 7 transition was far better than the 2000->XP or XP->Vista transition for driver compatibility, especially if you took the plunge and installed the 64 bit version.
Even if windows doesn't find all the drivers, somewhere like http://www.station-drivers.com/ is a good place to start. I mainly start off by googling for the device id from device manager and the name of the OS. If you're looking for a driver now it's very likely that someone has previously been looking for one as well.
-
Y'know, I ditched Linux once Ubuntu 9.10 ended support, but every now and then I think:"Lets see where its at, now".
And then I see a post like Amigapixel's, and all its starts to come back to me, and I realize its just Crazy Thinking.
Oh and if you want to know why it happened Amigapixel, I'll save you some time. Man what were you thinking going nutso and installing a video diver like that!
"Its your fault".
-
The Vista to 7 transition was far better than the 2000->XP or XP->Vista transition for driver compatibility, especially if you took the plunge and installed the 64 bit version.
Even if windows doesn't find all the drivers, somewhere like http://www.station-drivers.com/ is a good place to start. I mainly start off by googling for the device id from device manager and the name of the OS. If you're looking for a driver now it's very likely that someone has previously been looking for one as well.
OK that's good to know, thanks for the link and tips. I plan on installing the 64bit version since the hardware supports it. The system originally had a Pentium D 820 but I upgraded it to a Core 2 Duo E6400 since the MB supports it. Other than the Geforce card I am using the built in Network adapter and audio. I was able to find the XP drivers so hopefully Windows 7 will be straight forward.
-
Y'know, I ditched Linux once Ubuntu 9.10 ended support, but every now and then I think:"Lets see where its at, now".
And then I see a post like Amigapixel's, and all its starts to come back to me, and I realize its just Crazy Thinking.
Oh and if you want to know why it happened Amigapixel, I'll save you some time. Man what were you thinking going nutso and installing a video diver like that!
"Its your fault".
Well yes and no! I have virtually no experience with Ubuntu, before now I only tried running version 9 on the CD. I assumed as with Windows the driver is out dated or not even the best match and needs to updated. It ran pretty good before I messed it up, although it would stop responding quite a bit. For example Firefox would turn grey for a few seconds intermittently.
-
AmigaPixel,
By default Ubuntu will default to using the opensource X11 drivers, package names are
nouveau for Nvidia cards
radeon for ATi/AMD cards unless very old
If you don't intend to run 3D games on Ubuntu, it is best to stick with nouveau, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. If you want to run 3d games, look for the nvidia proprietary driver (free to download) and ensure your xorg.conf (X server config file) is setup for it. Feel free to ask me if you get stuck, I have used GNU/Linux for about 8 years so while I'm not super knowledgable, I know a fair amount about UNIX.
-
TeamBlackFox
No I intend to use Ubuntu as a safe way to use the internet and basic apps. "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" Yes too bad I had to learn the hard way! Oh well now I know better. Do you use Unix at home? If so what version of Unix do you use?
-
I use several versions:
Arch Linux on a laptop
FreeBSD for desktop and servers
IRIX on SGI Octane
And I have a PowerMac G5 I need to rebuild the watercooler in, going to be used for something, yet to decide since it doesn't run at the moment.
-
Oh god, the liquid cooled G5 Mac Pros. Why didn't someone at Apple think "hmm liquid and electronics, what could possibly go wrong with that?"
I use several versions:
Arch Linux on a laptop
FreeBSD for desktop and servers
IRIX on SGI Octane
And I have a PowerMac G5 I need to rebuild the watercooler in, going to be used for something, yet to decide since it doesn't run at the moment.
-
Water cooling was going to be the future for single core desktops. Fortunately they decided to take a a different approach.
Adding a second core gives between a -5% to %100 speed improvement.
-
Oh god, the liquid cooled G5 Mac Pros. Why didn't someone at Apple think "hmm liquid and electronics, what could possibly go wrong with that?"
Hey, its not leaking in my quad G5 version - I have no qualms as its whisper quiet, I am just rebuilding the cooling unit as a way to stave off a failure - standard for water cooled computers every so often.
-
A few years ago we had four liquid cooled G5s fail. The liquid got on the motherboard and nothing worked after that. We ended up having to replace them all. If it works it's brilliant but they also fail spectacularly...
-
Hence me doing prevetive maintenance and also changing the coolant to distilled water - far less corrosive to stock stuff.
-
Notice I say the word “had”. I just could not leave well enough alone. I thought hey lets install a Linux nVidia driver which screwed it all up. I got stuck in an endless loop of low graphics mode message. I could not even click on or tab to the OK button. I tried the Ubuntu recovery mode and steps I read to fix the issue but it didn’t work. To sum it up I had to delete the partition and use the Win install disk/Recovery console to fix the MBR. Then use a third party partition software to reclaim and stitch the lost partition back to the second partition. Whew! Lesson learned! Leave it be! Ubuntu works just fine without me mucking it up. I will try re-installing it tomorrow.
AmigaPixel, I did the exact same thing as you. Tried to install an NVIDIA driver and it resulted in a black screen on boot. I was almost ready to delete my Linux partition and reinstall when I finally found a good tutorial which helped me remove the bad NVIDIA driver using recovery mode. I then installed the NVIDIA driver manually using the command line and the driver from the NVIDIA site and it worked!
The driver installed from the Linux GUI (software & updates) was the one that screwed up my system. PM me if you need help.
-
Just wiped my XP machine and went MINT.
So far so good.
it's my laptop and mostly i just use it for web browsing.
The install recognized my video, wifi, sound and media buttons on my laptop.
No major complaints so far and much easier install than some in the past..
The initial issue I have (not major) so far is Netflix.
I knew there wasn't a Netflix for Linux yet, so I wasn't worried.
I did install Netflix Desktop, which is a WINE based install with Netflix running in a Windows Firefox instance with Silverlight.
That does seem to work for me..
Only drawback to that is that I have a Chromecast, and that requires Chrome, not Firefox. Apparently there are issues with that still..
Not a killer. I have the Wii and smartphone for sending Netflix to the TV. But I wish Netflix would just release a Linux version. ;-)
Haven't tried any games or anything yet, but not much of a gamer. This is an older laptop anyway.
I could run Win 7 on it. Still an option, but I'm familiar with Linux so decided to give it a shot first.
(Nothing against the other OSes. Use LOTS of Windows ( 7 on the desktops with some straggling XP VMs and lots of different versions on the server side) at work. Wife is pretty happy with her Win 7 netbook. I REALLY liked XP too.. So nothing against Windows. Just trying Linux on this guy. I like lots of OSes..)
desiv
-
AmigaPixel, I did the exact same thing as you. Tried to install an NVIDIA driver and it resulted in a black screen on boot. I was almost ready to delete my Linux partition and reinstall when I finally found a good tutorial which helped me remove the bad NVIDIA driver using recovery mode. I then installed the NVIDIA driver manually using the command line and the driver from the NVIDIA site and it worked!
The driver installed from the Linux GUI (software & updates) was the one that screwed up my system. PM me if you need help.
I don't know what Canonical where thinking when they altered how the drivers were installed. In the last LTS it was a simple case of going to the restricted drivers option in settings and the drivers marked as reccomended. Simple as that. There were others to install but they were beta drivers and legacy fallback drivers.
Now it's not newbie friendly because they just throw a bunch of drivers at you in a part of the system menu that you wouldn't think of looking in. they don't even say whats reccomended you have to pick and hope for the best.
However, as you found, terminal installs are usually the best way if all else fails.
Only drawback to that is that I have a Chromecast, and that requires Chrome, not Firefox. Apparently there are issues with that still..
Not a killer. I have the Wii and smartphone for sending Netflix to the TV. But I wish Netflix would just release a Linux version. ;-)
Have you installed Chrome? If you go to the Chrome download page it should automatically give you the option to download the 32 or 64 bit version for debian systems. Click download and it should download the .deb file. Simply open it and the package manager will install it.
-
Have you installed Chrome?
Oh yeah.
I have Chrome and that works and the Chromecast plugin.
I can send youtube or whatever to my Chromecast from my MINT box.
I just can't send Netflix, as Netflix doesn't run in Chrome (or any native browser) on Linux.
There is a way to get the Windows version of Firefox to work and I've done that, but that version doesn't support the Chromecast from Netflix.
The Windows version of Chrome does, but I haven't seen anyone that has the Windows version of Chrome running with the Chromecast extension and Netflix.
Most people seem to just run a VM for that, but I'm trying to go without a VM.
Well, I just got Netflix running in my Linux native Chrome browser using Pipelight, which is nice..But still no Chromecast option in Netflix. I'm guessing the pipelight extension doesn't talk to the native Chromecast extension. Still, closer.. ;-)
desiv
-
Oh yeah.
I have Chrome and that works and the Chromecast plugin.
I can send youtube or whatever to my Chromecast from my MINT box.
I just can't send Netflix, as Netflix doesn't run in Chrome (or any native browser) on Linux.
There is a way to get the Windows version of Firefox to work and I've done that, but that version doesn't support the Chromecast from Netflix.
The Windows version of Chrome does, but I haven't seen anyone that has the Windows version of Chrome running with the Chromecast extension and Netflix.
Most people seem to just run a VM for that, but I'm trying to go without a VM.
Well, I just got Netflix running in my Linux native Chrome browser using Pipelight, which is nice..But still no Chromecast option in Netflix. I'm guessing the pipelight extension doesn't talk to the native Chromecast extension. Still, closer.. ;-)
desiv
I have taken a look at the Ubuntu knowledge base and this came up.
http://askubuntu.com/questions/324236/how-can-i-use-chromecast
Dunno if the second answer helps.
-
Haven't tried this..
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-enable-silverlight-watch-netflix-linux/ (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-enable-silverlight-watch-netflix-linux/)
-
Haven't tried this..
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-enable-silverlight-watch-netflix-linux/ (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/easily-enable-silverlight-watch-netflix-linux/)
Yep, that's what I did to get Netflix working in native Chrome on my Linux MINT box.
That works... As does Netflix Player, which is basically Windows Firefox in WINE.
So, I have 2 methods of watching Netflix on Linux.
But neither of those support sending Netflix to the Chromecast.
Not a biggie, but something that worked in XP.
Just found another minor issue, but fixed (kind of) it.
My SD card reader (built in) wasn't working..
Turns out, the reader in the DELL is PCI based and supports SD AND XD.
Apparently those drivers don't like each other..
So I had to blacklist the XD driver, and now the SD cards work great. As I don't have any XD cards, its not a loss to me.
I could modprobe -r the SD driver and modprobe the XD driver if I wanted XD. That would work, but not quite as simple as Windows. Still no big deal tho..
So far, so good..
desiv
(Just backed up my Raspberry Pi SD card using DD ) :-)
-
Yep, that's what I did to get Netflix working in native Chrome on my Linux MINT box.
That works... As does Netflix Player, which is basically Windows Firefox in WINE.
So, I have 2 methods of watching Netflix on Linux.
But neither of those support sending Netflix to the Chromecast.
Not a biggie, but something that worked in XP.
Just found another minor issue, but fixed (kind of) it.
My SD card reader (built in) wasn't working..
Turns out, the reader in the DELL is PCI based and supports SD AND XD.
Apparently those drivers don't like each other..
So I had to blacklist the XD driver, and now the SD cards work great. As I don't have any XD cards, its not a loss to me.
I could modprobe -r the SD driver and modprobe the XD driver if I wanted XD. That would work, but not quite as simple as Windows. Still no big deal tho..
So far, so good..
desiv
(Just backed up my Raspberry Pi SD card using DD ) :-)
Out of curiosity did you try to install the desktop client for Netflix?
run these in terminal.
sudo apt-add-repository ppa:ehoover/compholio
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install netflix-desktop
I don't know if this might help with teh Chromecast thing.
-
Yep,
I did that.
Netflix works.
It's just chromecast from Netflix that doesn't.
And chromecast from Chrome browser works, but not with Netflix.
desiv
-
Yep,
I did that.
Netflix works.
It's just chromecast from Netflix that doesn't.
And chromecast from Chrome browser works, but not with Netflix.
desiv
Fair enough. I didn't know if by installing this bit of software that it would help with the streaming.
This was going to be my next trick to try.
iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 32768:61000 -j ACCEPT
See if opening some ports would help.
-
Did you try the Google Cast (not Chromecast) extension in Chrome?
-
Have you installed Chrome? If you go to the Chrome download page it should automatically give you the option to download the 32 or 64 bit version for debian systems. Click download and it should download the .deb file. Simply open it and the package manager will install it.
Can I ask you about .deb files? I understand they are some sort of archive file containing installation files.
When I've seen the option to download .deb files on a website, it gives me all sorts of "flavours" for the deb files, with cute names like "saucy", "quanta", "precise", "onieric"...etc. But I don't know which "cute name version" I should choose for Lubuntu.
Here is an example download site:
https://launchpad.net/~mmbossoni-gmail/+archive/emu
The other question I have is: it seems that most software downloaded for Linux is from online repositories, or installed via the command line and live downloaded from the publisher's site as it's installing (live). One thing I liked about windows is you could download the whole executable installer and keep it in your own archive in case you needed to re-install that particular version in future.
For instance, I could make up a CD-R disc of old Windows 98 installers for applications I really liked, and then if I was setting up an old Windows 98 machine, I could just install all the old apps directly from the disc (using the old installers). Some of these installers are hard to find on the web today, as the the software publishers have faded into obscurity. Also, it meant the computer didn't have to be connected to the web.
Is there any way to do this with Linux?
-
Did you try the Google Cast (not Chromecast) extension in Chrome?
I'm note sure what that is...
I have the extension from Google to allow me to cast video from my Linux Chrome Browser to my Chromecast.
i use that for sending Youtube videos to my Chromecast from Chrome and that works fine.
But in that same browser instance, if I use the Pipelight installed version of Netflix, I can see the video on the screen, but don't have the option to send to the Chromecast.
From what I can tell, it might be because I have to use a UserAgent Switcher to tell Netflix that I am using something Firefox, because if I leave it at Chrome Netflix checks the agent and says not compatible.
There are some people that think that might be the issue.
Unfortunately, the Switcher I have doesn't let me set one manually (at least not from it's menu) so I can't try a Chrome on Windows User Agent.
I'll poke around with that..
desiv
-
But I don't know which "cute name version" I should choose for Lubuntu.
Think of the Lubuntu part as the "Windows" part of a description of your OS.
If you need to download something for your Windows machine, just knowing it's Windows might not be enough. You might need to know which version of Windows.
98, XP, 7, 8, etc...
Those cute names relate to major releases that you can think of as Windows versions.
So, the answer is going to depend on which version of Lubuntu you have.
I'm a command line guy, so I'd probably do a:
cat /etc/lsb-release
or
lsb_release -a
Those should tell you the cute name for your Lubuntu...
Here's a great reference chart too:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames
One thing I liked about windows is you could download the whole executable installer and keep it in your own archive in case you needed to re-install that particular version in future.
Those should generally be cached in:
/var/cache/apt/archives
..so you can look there after you install it. Unless something has cleared the apt cache..
desiv
-
I know what the names mean. They are the names of the major ubuntu releases. From Karmic Chameleon, Natty Narwhal and so on. KLMNO
-
I didn't notice you were in Oz. You are going to have to hide your ip with a proxy to get Netflix (UK or US) or iPlayer to work. Basically Netflix US needs to believe you are in the US to wok, similarly Netflix UK or iPlayer need to know you are in the UK...
There are lots and lots of proxy servers out there, just google it.
-
I use several versions:
Arch Linux on a laptop
FreeBSD for desktop and servers
IRIX on SGI Octane
And I have a PowerMac G5 I need to rebuild the watercooler in, going to be used for something, yet to decide since it doesn't run at the moment.
I had a brief time on one of the first line of Windows NT based SGI machines back in 1998. I was working at the Muscular Dystrophy Association, someone in their graphics department decided that they should have one with Maya version 1.0 installed. I worked in a different dept. but I had experience with Lightwave 3D, so they had me try it out. I have say I did not like the Maya interface at that time.
-
@Ral-Clan
Which version of Ubuntu did you install? I installed version 12.04 because I was pretty sure it would work well in a dual boot with Win XP. I got the impression that the latest version 13.10 doesn't play well with Windows but I don't know. I am curious about versions 12.10 and 13.04 if they work well beside Win XP. I got Ubuntu back up and running but I am a little hesitant of even doing the recommended updates within Ubuntu! I installed GIMP and Comodo Antivirus.
-
AmigaPixel,
I am running Lubuntu 13.10, which has Ubuntu saucy at the core. It dual boots well with Windows XP. I ran the automatic updates too. Gimp is installed, but I haven't installed any antivirus software yet.
Not sure if I should install AVAST for Linux, AVG for Linux or COMODO for Linux. They all sound good.
-
Not sure if I should install AVAST for Linux, AVG for Linux or COMODO for Linux.
You don't need to install any of them. They all just scan for Windows malware, they're intended for people running stuff like mail servers.
Just install all available software updates as soon as they're available (it's automated, anyway), and stick with the official software repositories - or at least be very careful what other repositories you add. You won't encounter any malware issues that way.
-
You don't need to install any of them. They all just scan for Windows malware, they're intended for people running stuff like mail servers..
Although, if he's dual booting, he could mount his Windows partition and scan it using those tools, for a decent offline scan of that OS..
Not sure I'd go to the trouble, but it's probably a bit easier than a boot CD/thumb drive to scan his Windows OS offline.
desiv
-
I found this:
8 deadly commands you should never run on Linux
Link:
http://www.howtogeek.com/125157/8-deadly-commands-you-should-never-run-on-linux/ (http://www.howtogeek.com/125157/8-deadly-commands-you-should-never-run-on-linux/)
So someone could give you a command that erases your entire drive?
-
So someone could give you a command that erases your entire drive?
Yep,
pretty standard for any OS really.
That's why separation between your user and you your admin level rights on the box is so important.
That RM command would still be painful, but not nearly as painful if you aren't root. (or run it with sudo, which generally asks for a password)
desiv
Admin: Make me a sandwich.
User: No, make it yourself.
Admin: sudo Make me a sandwich.
User: OK.
-
Yep,
pretty standard for any OS really.
That's why separation between your user and you your admin level rights on the box is so important.
That RM command would still be painful, but not nearly as painful if you aren't root. (or run it with sudo, which generally asks for a password)
desiv
Admin: Make me a sandwich.
User: No, make it yourself.
Admin: sudo Make me a sandwich.
User: OK.
(http://trinityweb.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sandwich.png?w=300&h=249)
:roflmao:
To be fair most of the nasty commands now need sudo to run. Or at the very least some sort of enhanced privliges. I have noticed very few modern Linux distributions allowing you to set a root password beyond the sort of heavy duty distributions such as Red Hat.
But it is always wise to check what a command does if you get it off some random thread.
-
You don't need to install any of them. They all just scan for Windows malware, they're intended for people running stuff like mail servers.
One thing that could be done is install so called rootkit detection software e.g. software that tries to detect for the unlikely event a script kiddie could penetrate your computer. This is software like rkhunter and chkrootkit. These tools don't run in background though and have to be started manually or scheduled on a regular time.
-
Does linux Ubuntu have the eqivalent to Task manger? Applcations mainly Firefox freeze up and I have no way to end the programs. Ubuntu even with the updates seems a little buggy rigth now, I am using version 12.04 for now.
-
Well doing a quick search I found this article which helps explain the Ubuntu system monitor, but it does not tell of any keyboard shortcuts in case the mouse is frozen. It does'nt it mention if you can end specific programs.
-
Well doing a quick search I found this article which helps explain the Ubuntu system monitor, but it does not tell of any keyboard shortcuts in case the mouse is frozen. It does'nt it mention if you can end specific programs.
open a terminal window (ctrl+alt+t) then do killall firefox in the cli. If it complains the stick sudo infront of it. So long as you know the terminal command to run a program you can kill it the by apending killall infront of it. If not you can do a check using top or ps.
I reall like htop, which is a enhanced veriosn of top, for doing process management in terminal. It gives clear info on what state the system is in and gives a breakdown of running processes on both user and root. If you are on a debian/ubuntu system simply do sudo apt-get install htop and bingo bango it is done. To run type htop in a terminal and off it goes. If you need enhanced privlidges for something stick sudo infront of it.
(http://hisham.hm/htop/htop-1.0-screenshot.png)
-
And with that, we get a quick lesson as to why so many people are sticking with Windows.
For God's sake, why isn't there an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?
I feel like I'm back in the '80s with crap like this.
-
For God's sake, why isn't there an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?
Assumptions much?
Who said there isn't an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?
Of course there is, or are..
There are lots..
Ubuntu and Mint (and other variants) almost always come with System Monitor, ether enabled or easy to enable (left click on the taskbar and add the applet).
Select the "Processes" tab. Select the process and end it.
Although there are lots of fun command line options also.
One of my favorites was always xkill.
Type that into a terminal (or you could put an icon on your desktop for it if you want, but it's not needed very often, so I don't bother).
Then your cursor becomes and X and you can kill any process (window) by clicking on it.. Great fun!! :-)
desiv
-
Does linux Ubuntu have the eqivalent to Task manger? Applcations mainly Firefox freeze up and I have no way to end the programs. Ubuntu even with the updates seems a little buggy rigth now, I am using version 12.04 for now.
And in time you'll be saying that about 12.10, 13.04, 13.10, 14.04 or whatever version. This idea that a new version is put out every 6 months is madness, although better than the distro's who are on a rolling update. THATs like playing Russian roulette, with every update you get everyday.
All distro's are on this hamster wheel to up the version number that stability is secondary to having the latest. And YOU get to be the guinea pig for every new version.
-
For God's sake, why isn't there an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?
There is, of course. It's just a lot easier to tell him "open terminal and type 'foo'" than writing half a novel explaining where to click, what it's called and how it will react.
I feel like I'm back in the '80s with crap like this.
Then use Synaptic and the Gnome System Monitor (or whatever equivalent Lubuntu is using) to do the tasks described above.
The rest of us will enjoy the beauty that is the Unix terminal in the meantime.
-
All distro's are on this hamster wheel to up the version number that stability is secondary to having the latest.
And on top of that, Linux is making our children gay! I saw it with my own eyes!
-
And with that, we get a quick lesson as to why so many people are sticking with Windows.
For God's sake, why isn't there an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?
I feel like I'm back in the '80s with crap like this.
There are numerous tools available, just like there is in Windows. Showing someone the Teminal way of doing things is not heresy towards a gui way. But if something does go wrong with the gui then terminal will be the way to go.
And in time you'll be saying that about 12.10, 13.04, 13.10, 14.04 or whatever version. This idea that a new version is put out every 6 months is madness, although better than the distro's who are on a rolling update. THATs like playing Russian roulette, with every update you get everyday.
All distro's are on this hamster wheel to up the version number that stability is secondary to having the latest. And YOU get to be the guinea pig for every new version.
Someone needs to take some chillout time. You do know the difference between Ubuntu release models don't you? Such as LTS and standard releases?
They make it pretty clear what the difference is between releases.
-
There is, of course. It's just a lot easier to tell him "open terminal and type 'foo'" than writing half a novel explaining where to click, what it's called and how it will react.
NO!No!No!
I've heard this bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! excuse for Linux lack of intuitive interface a lot.
All the user is doing is cut and pasting archaic, cryptic commands that :
1. He has no idea what they do and why.
2. He will not remember any of it.
Y'know people sometime in the 1970's realised this and thought...there has to be a better way..and lo and behold, there was.
They called it a Graphical User Interface.
Then use Synaptic and the Gnome System Monitor (or whatever equivalent Lubuntu is using) to do the tasks described above.
So why did he have to come here and ask and couldn't see this for himself?
The rest of us will enjoy the beauty that is the Unix terminal in the meantime.
I think I just threw up a little.
-
Someone needs to take some chillout time. You do know the difference between Ubuntu release models don't you? Such as LTS and standard releases?
They make it pretty clear what the difference is between releases.
1. I do know the difference. Even with LTS, the updates are not always fully tested. Especially when a new LTS version is released. Look at the Unity LTS debacle.
2. Ubuntu doesn't equal Linux. In fact its not even the most popular distro, Mint is. Which is a rolling release..which means more Linux users are subject to the risks of running rolling releases.
-
And on top of that, Linux is making our children gay! I saw it with my own eyes!
Its interesting you brought homosexuality into it.
-
@stefcep2
After you have finished your little tantrum maybe you need to read the post I replied to.
Well doing a quick search I found this article which helps explain the Ubuntu system monitor, but it does not tell of any keyboard shortcuts in case the mouse is frozen. It does'nt it mention if you can end specific programs.
They were looking for keyboard specific solutions. I offered a keyboard specific solution. It's not the only keyboard specific way. Maybe you need to keep off the caffeine because it is obviously not good for you.
1. I do know the difference. Even with LTS, the updates are not always fully tested. Especially when a new LTS version is released. Look at the Unity LTS debacle.
Just look for Windows failed updates or Windows update gone wrong. In fact look at Metro when it was introduced.
Failed updates happen on all OS's. They can't account for every hardware config in the world. Even Microsoft can't do that.
LTS releases have a long support life. You are not forced to upgrade as soon as a new lts is released.
2. Ubuntu doesn't equal Linux. In fact its not even the most popular distro, Mint is. Which is a rolling release..which means more Linux users are subject to the risks of running rolling releases.
We know Ubuntu doesn't equal Linux. But I think you have got your facts wrong. Mint Debian Edition is rolling release and based off Debian Testing, but even this is a semi-rolling release which introduces snapshot packages from the testing respoitories. Mint, the main editions, it's self is based directly off Ubuntu and follows roughly a month after each Ubuntu update. That is not a rolling release model. Ubuntu is not a rolling release.
Also where did you get your fact that Mint is the most popular distro, Distro Watch? Because if you did then this is not a good indicator of what is popular.
Bodnar has written that "I'd like to believe that there is some truth in the figures, but in all honesty, they really don't mean all that much and should not be taken very seriously" and "NOT an indication of [...] market share or quality".
-
Does linux Ubuntu have the eqivalent to Task manger? Applcations mainly Firefox freeze up and I have no way to end the programs. Ubuntu even with the updates seems a little buggy rigth now, I am using version 12.04 for now.
This exact thing happened to me yesterday for the first time. Firefox totally froze and locked my Lubuntu system, requiring a hard reboot. Is that what happened to you?
I can't figure out how to update Firefox. In windows it was from the "About Firefox" window within Firefox. This is not present in Linux firefox (at least in Lubuntu). I suspect it must be done from the main system updates panel for Lubuntu.
-
I've heard this bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! excuse for Linux lack of intuitive interface a lot.
[...]
So why did he have to come here and ask and couldn't see this for himself?
Invoking the 'task manager' and killing a task actually works exactly like on Windows. It's not more or less user friendly than on other systems, you just have to know the proper keyboard shortcut or where to find it in the applications menu.
Somebody told you the required keyboard shortcut for Windows a decade ago - and nobody's bothering to explain the Linux equivalent to you (might be because of all the swearing, but that's just a guess) - that's the only difference.
Ubuntu doesn't equal Linux.
Your statement was that "all distros" would be on "that hamster wheel" - which is completely ridiculous of course. Two thirds of the Internet is running on Linux these days - but hey, what's that compared to your glorious insight in Linux' stability...
-
I can't figure out how to update Firefox. In windows it was from the "About Firefox" window within Firefox. This is not present in Linux firefox (at least in Lubuntu).
Linux automatically keeps all your applications up to date for you. Lubuntu checks for updates every other day (or something like that), notifies you and starts updating in the background.
This approach has a drawback - many Windows users stumble about that one: "but Firefox 412 has been already released, where is it?"
Usually, Linux distributions only release bug fixes and security updates immediately, other updates either arrive with a delay (due to some distribution specific testing before release) or they will only be made available with the next bigger OS update (like Lubuntu 14.04 which has just been released).
-
Since we're still talking about Linux... I installed Debian 7.4 on my G5 PowerMac to see how it would run.. so far so good. Havent played with it much, but I'll be looking to install some emulators (Amiga, c64 etc) and changing the window manager from Gnome3 to something else.
-
Mint, the main editions, it's self is based directly off Ubuntu and follows roughly a month after each Ubuntu update. That is not a rolling release model. Ubuntu is not a rolling release.
It's kind of interesting that Mint was mentioned here, considering the disagreement between an Ubuntu dev and Mint about stability.
Mint has chosen not to automatically update the kernel (and a few other things) with the regular updates. In their mind, they see some possible stability issues.
But some people feel that the possible security implications outweigh the stability issue.
Of course, we have the same type of things with our Windows server updates.
Our hosting provider updates once a month, and not every week. Some people in business love that. Some people in I.T. (I'm looking at you "Security"!) aren't so sure...
It's not an OS specific issue, it's just the biz..
desiv
(I installed Mint a bit ago on my old XP laptop. Haven't decided if I'm going to enable the kernel+ auto updates yet or not.. Kind of waiting to see.. I might agree with Mint on this one, but not sure yet..)
-
Y'know people sometime in the 1970's realised this and thought...there has to be a better way..and lo and behold, there was.
They called it a Graphical User Interface.
For everybody it's own. I am one of those weird guys who did a lot of his Amiga stuff in AmigaShell using Vinced.
Just to say Amiga was not GUI only...
-
This exact thing happened to me yesterday for the first time. Firefox totally froze and locked my Lubuntu system, requiring a hard reboot. Is that what happened to you?
I can't figure out how to update Firefox. In windows it was from the "About Firefox" window within Firefox. This is not present in Linux firefox (at least in Lubuntu). I suspect it must be done from the main system updates panel for Lubuntu.
Yes for the last two days Ubuntu freezes before I even do anything. Before it would run for a awhile then freeze especially on FireFox but now the mouse pointer and entire desktop freezes. I downloaded ver. 13.10 so I was hoping your set up was still running smoothly. I have not installed 13.10 yet. I was trying to see if there is a way to assign keyboard shortcuts to System monitor. However I am not sure that even if I could bring the system monitor up or the terminal to kill Firefox I doubt if that would make any difference since the whole desktop is frozen.
Also, Am I the only one who has had to run the Grub/MBR Boot-repair after each installation of Ubuntu? The install goes fine but when I reboot I get the BIOS/Splash screen then straight to Win XP, so I have to run this repair program to finally get a Grub dual boot screen. Nuts!
-
open a terminal window (ctrl+alt+t) then do killall firefox in the cli. If it complains the stick sudo infront of it. So long as you know the terminal command to run a program you can kill it the by apending killall infront of it. If not you can do a check using top or ps.
I reall like htop, which is a enhanced veriosn of top, for doing process management in terminal. It gives clear info on what state the system is in and gives a breakdown of running processes on both user and root. If you are on a debian/ubuntu system simply do sudo apt-get install htop and bingo bango it is done. To run type htop in a terminal and off it goes. If you need enhanced privlidges for something stick sudo infront of it.
(http://hisham.hm/htop/htop-1.0-screenshot.png)
OK thanks for the information, I will try that out.
-
Somebody told you the required keyboard shortcut for Windows a decade ago - and nobody's bothering to explain the Linux equivalent to you (might be because of all the swearing, but that's just a guess) - that's the only difference.
If you know what Task Manager is for in Windows then finding it on your own is trivially easy. It's on the menu that is used for logging out or locking the screen and is also available by right clicking the task bar.
If you have to court an existing Linux user to find out how to do the same, then I can see why Windows has a much higher installation rate.
-
Two thirds of the Internet is running on Linux these days - but hey, what's that compared to your glorious insight in Linux' stability...
So what? Barely 1% of computers *connected* to the internet run Linux.
Linux is a good server OS. What does it do? Negotiate connections, allow other computers to access and facilitate the transfer of data from the servers.
But the demands of a server OS are very different to those of a desktop OS.
As an amateur, free to acquire but not free in time OS Linux is a decent.
But most users would rather just pay for a Mac or Windows PC and not waste their valuable time fartsing around in the terminal to do simple things.
-
For everybody it's own. I am one of those weird guys who did a lot of his Amiga stuff in AmigaShell using Vinced.
Just to say Amiga was not GUI only...
Never said it was.
But you had a choice.
-
Never said it was.
But you had a choice.
You also have the choice on Linux. It's just that most Linux users also learn to use the CLI and thus propose solutions for problems using the CLI.
And once you are used to it HOWTO's for example for Windows with step-by-step click here, click there just seems quite involved.
But like said before if Linux is not for you, don't use it. Just don't assume everybody thinks or functions as you.
-
Windows users don't even know there's a command prompt in Windows. And heaven forbid one of these new Windows Server 2012 Administrators ever has to fix a config file. Face it, Windows is for people who don't ever want to see a command line. It's really no different to Android...
-
If you have to court an existing Linux user to find out how to do the same, then I can see why Windows has a much higher installation rate.
If you don't know how to do it in Linux, then why bother to reply?
On Ubuntu, you open the main menu then go to System -> System Management -> System Monitor. I don't think that'r rocket science.
-
So what? Barely 1% of computers *connected* to the internet run Linux.
Im not sure where you get that statistic from but market share does not a good operating system make!
Linux is a good server OS. What does it do? Negotiate connections, allow other computers to access and facilitate the transfer of data from the servers.
Very true thats why server market penetration for linux is high. In fact linux is not just great for servers its also great for lightweight embedded devices such as home routers, industrial equipment as well as very popular devices like the Raspberry Pi.
But the demands of a server OS are very different to those of a desktop OS.
Thats why , just like windows there are different flavours of Linux , eg Red-Hat and Centos for the server and Ubuntu or Mint on the desktop.
As an amateur, free to acquire but not free in time OS Linux is a decent.
Amateur is a very loaded term, it suggests that you are not aware that Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry. It suggests that its not built by paid professionals such as those employed by IBM, RedHat, Canonical and Cisco plus many others. Or perhaps Google who use the Linux kernel as the basis for its operating systems Android and their Desktop ChromeOS. Android has the lions share of the mobile operating system market , greater than iOS and others combined. Thats pretty impressive for what you describe as an "Amateur" os.
But most users would rather just pay for a Mac or Windows PC and not waste their valuable time fartsing around in the terminal to do simple things.
Most users are not aware that they have Linux as a choice. That is because Microsoft actively penalize OEM manufacturers for offering it as an option. Finally any new version of a desktop oriented version of Linux running on supported hardware eg: Ubuntu , is every bit as capable for every day simple things* without going anywhere near a command line.
* Web browsing, email, word processing, image processing
But linux can run non-simple stuff too! Many of the industry standard 3D modelling packages run on linux such as Maya. There are also some great DAW's such as Renoise and Bitwig studio.
The ONLY thing thats really holding it back is gaming and thats taking a big turn because Valve have chosen it as the backbone for SteamOS.
There is actually one other thing thats holding it back , and thats people like you propogating the myth that people seem to think that an operating system that can do all the things above and more is no good for the desktop.
This guy has some great video's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYTOavWs6Aw&list=TLRaDy3dFjCDwahACdqauwexl5Rf2T5j5D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuTv92LOy1U&list=TLVqbQzmooAQzKMcl7rxuN3n-CtARVBCCR
-
Yes, the market is fractured at the moment with desktop ruled by Microsoft, Server split between Linux and Microsoft and Mobile devices dominated by Google's Android. With the release of MS Office for Android Microsoft has conceded that the split is likely to be long term.
Operating System choice is becoming irrelevant as more and more software supports Windows, Android, iOS and to a lesser extent OS X. The money has moved to the cloud. Microsoft happily collects the same amount of money from an Android, iOS, or OS X user for Office 365. And they collect it annually, not once like they do with an operating system. In a single move they have negated the number one reason for buying a Windows tablet, because they make far more money from that Office 365 than they would have from from the tablet itself.
-
When Linux just freezes at boot, it can be really offputting.
I have a fix... Go back to an earlier more stable version. The latest release with great features is not the best Linux. An earlier version that has all your drivers is the one to pick.
-
Windows users don't even know there's a command prompt in Windows. And heaven forbid one of these new Windows Server 2012 Administrators ever has to fix a config file. Face it, Windows is for people who don't ever want to see a command line. It's really no different to Android...
This statement is full of fail. I know plenty of Windows users that use a command prompt, jpsoft have even made a business out of it. I wouldn't even say that Mac users don't know there's a command prompt in OSX, because I now some do.
If you don't know how to do it in Linux, then why bother to reply?
My point didn't require me to know, in fact quite the opposite.
On Ubuntu, you open the main menu then go to System -> System Management -> System Monitor. I don't think that'r rocket science.
What if I'm not using Ubuntu? Is it the same in all the other distros?
Im not sure where you get that statistic from but market share does not a good operating system make!
Apparently it does, at least the following post he was replying to implied that it did. You can't have it both ways.
Two thirds of the Internet is running on Linux these days - but hey, what's that compared to your glorious insight in Linux' stability...
Linux is good when a company wants to make a profit out of someone elses hard work, to drive down prices on TV's, phone's, servers etc. It also can break compatibility a lot easier, something that Microsoft can't. Windows gets some really dreadful device drivers and software written for it too, but then you should be able to buy any old printer (or other peripheral) and expect that it should just work with Windows.
-
When Linux just freezes at boot, it can be really offputting.
I have a fix... Go back to an earlier more stable version. The latest release with great features is not the best Linux. An earlier version that has all your drivers is the one to pick.
How far back would you suggest? I have 12.04 installed right now and freezes right after booting to the desktop.
-
What if I'm not using Ubuntu? Is it the same in all the other distros?
I'm on Linux Mint 16 here. I was curious so went to look. You can find the "task manager" at "Menu -> Administration -> System Monitor". Took me about 5 seconds to locate it, seemed logical enough of a place, I'd hope other user friendly distros would take about as much time.
Over various versions of Windows various tools/utilities/apps have also moved around, but it's usually pretty similar to find what is needed. The exception for me was Windows 8, takes me forever to intuitively find a damn thing on that OS.
There's 3 reasons I am running Mint right now:
1) My experience with Windows 8 was extremely annoying. Why do I want to use something that annoys the hell out of me?
2) Both my Windows 7 and Vista computers stopped working after a bad automatic update from MS.
3) With the above I thought lets give Linux another try since my laptop wasn't booting anyway. Linux Mint has been working just fine for what I need a computer to do for several months now. Not once have I gone into a command line, nor have I messed with a single damn config thing. It just works. And it doesn't annoy me. So why wouldn't I use it?
Keep in mind I have nothing against Windows in general, I've been a happy Windows user over the years, just at this point Mint is making me happier. If it doesn't work in the future for some reason I'll drop it and move to something that works better, I'm not that attached. These days I just need a good web browser, music player, editor and a few other things, it's very easy to move around.
-
It's really no different to Android...
One of the reasons for me to choose Android phone is that I can ssh into it...
-
How far back would you suggest? I have 12.04 installed right now and freezes right after booting to the desktop.
Honestly, today, I'd try 14.04, it was just released and pretty slick in general. You may actually find a newer version will fix something that existed in 12.04. I'd try this first.
Failing that, you may want to try Debian Wheezy, it's not unsimilar to a 'core' version of what is in the *buntus.
~S
-
Linux is good when a company wants to make a profit out of someone elses hard work, to drive down prices on TV's, phone's, servers etc.
Yes you are right. The reason we use Linux to design chips is that we don't want to pay a few bucks for an OS to run our software with license fees of a few $1000.
NOT!
-
Honestly, today, I'd try 14.04, it was just released and pretty slick in general. You may actually find a newer version will fix something that existed in 12.04. I'd try this first.
Failing that, you may want to try Debian Wheezy, it's not unsimilar to a 'core' version of what is in the *buntus.
~S
Yes I may do that this weekend Ral-Clan did already and said it is running pretty good with only an issue with OpenGL
-
Not once have I gone into a command line, nor have I messed with a single damn config thing.
Uh oh. I can't hep myself.... :griping:
Man, what is the fear of command line and config files in this world.. ;-)
And I'm not talking Linux..
I was just on an interview panel for a Windows "server tech" and most of the applicants seemed afraid of Powershell.
(I love Powershell!!)
Don't get me wrong, GUIs are great.
One of my favorite parts of the Amiga was the GUI.
But if I can do something faster and more efficiently with text, why wouldn't I want to do that?
When I want to send a quick message to someone, I don't call them or skype them. I TEXT them..
Sometimes, even today, text is still better!!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
desiv
-
Im not sure where you get that statistic from but market share does not a good operating system make!
...
Most users are not aware that they have Linux as a choice. That is because Microsoft actively penalize OEM manufacturers for offering it as an option
....
I agree on the first point. Please don't get me started on Market share. It's based on sales not downloads of free Linux distributions. So how could it be used to determine Linux popularity?
Once more: Market share can never be used to determine the popularity of machines in use. So don't.
On the second point, bullsh1t. Microsoft give direct incentives for their OS on OEM kit for sure, but they have no reps with black top hats, capes, and stiffly waxed moustaches going around the world sabotaging other products. ALL the major MB manufactures support Linux and provide drivers for most or at a minimum subset of their MBs.
-
On the second point, bullsh1t. Microsoft give direct incentives for their OS on OEM kit for sure, but they have no reps with black top hats, capes, and stiffly waxed moustaches going around the world sabotaging other products. ALL the major MB manufactures support Linux and provide drivers for most or at a minimum subset of their MBs.
It's not cost effective for an OEM to ship Linux. It limits their hardware selection for a start.
-
Microsoft [...] have no reps with black top hats, capes, and stiffly waxed moustaches going around the world sabotaging other products.
"The AARD code was a segment of code in a beta release of Microsoft Windows 3.1 that would determine whether Windows was running on MS-DOS or PC DOS, rather than a competing workalike such as DR-DOS, and would result in a cryptic error message in the latter case." (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code))
"Electronic greeting card firm Blue Mountain Arts has won another round in its battle with Microsoft Corp. Late Thursday, a Santa Clara County (Calif.) Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction stopping Microsoft from setting up filters in its Outlook Express mail program that treated greeting cards from Blue Mountain as junk mail. " (source (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/24451))
"In 2002, Be Inc. sued Microsoft claiming that Hitachi had been dissuaded from selling PCs loaded with BeOS, and that Compaq had been pressured not to market an Internet appliance in partnership with Be. [...] The case was eventually settled out of court for $23.25 million with no admission of liability on Microsoft's part." (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS))
Microsoft has a long history of "sabotaging other products". I'm not saying they're stopping OEMs from bundling Linux, but I wouldn't make tinfoil hat jokes about somebody who's suggesting they do.
-
And on top of that, Linux is making our children gay! I saw it with my own eyes!
Not only gay but Muslim too! ;)
http://www.sabily.org/
-
It's not cost effective for an OEM to ship Linux. It limits their hardware selection for a start.
Assuming an OEM had to decide to ship Linux on all their motherboards and be compatible with all their products, that might be the case.
But that isn't the case..
It's all about sales and marketing.
If Dell could sell a consumer laptop with Linux on it, but Linux wasn't compatible with their corporate laptop chipset, AND that consumer laptop with Linux sold really well, Dell wouldn't care. They'd sell it if it sold well.
If it wasn't compatible with all their laser printers, but the laptop still sold well, they'd still sell it. After all, it's about selling product.
The issue with Linux on OEM machines is simply that they haven't sold well enough.
I think a lot of that is because it has been kind of advertised as a Windows replacement, but it's not. It's its own OS with its own benefits and drawbacks.
At work, people were psyched when we started to provide iPads for calendar/e-mail and notes. And then people started getting them and some of them were disappointed. The iPads didn't run all of their macros in their Excel docs. They didn't connect (or connect well) to the iSeries...
Fact is, the iPad is great for what it is, but those people wanted a Windows compatible device too. That project was still a success tho, because the people who were happy were the people who mostly needed e-mail/calendar and notes (i.e. managers, administrators and their assistants). ;-)
If you want/need Windows, you won't be happy with Linux.
If you want/need a device that can do what Linux can do, you can be happy with it.
Good news is that Linux does a lot that people need and works on a lot of hardware really well. (Typing this on a DELL XPS M1210)
But it doesn't do everything, and some people just want Windows.
That's OK..
As the market goes more web based, it gets more and more open for Linux (and OSX). And choice is good for everyone.
Heck, Windows Server 2012 has several new features that I think were inspired by the Linux server competition. I think that's great. 2012 is much better as a result of Linux. (IMHO) ;-)
desiv
-
Remember netbooks? There was a year or two when they were very popular and then they vanished from the market. They were initially available with Linux as an option. There was a story about a woman who was a uni student who accidentally bought a Linux netbook, she said that because it was Linux and she couldn't figure it out she was going to have to drop out of uni and become a prostitute and eventually die in a plague infested port screaming "hello sailor!" or something like that. I remember that the press make a big deal out of it....
-
Remember netbooks? There was a year or two when they were very popular and then they vanished from the market. .
I always thought that was some of the weirdest marketing around..
There were just small laptops...
We still have 2 of them, one newer Acer (They still sell them and still sometimes call them Netbooks) and an older Dell Mini 9.
Ironically, even tho I'm a Linux fan, they are both Windows machines.. ;-)
My wife likes the form factor of the "Netbooks", but her photo stuff is mostly Windows.
I do have Linux on the Mini-9 now that she's using the Acer, but I stole the memory from it it for my laptop, so it's waiting for an e-bay order to get back into the running. ;-)
desiv
-
Very true thats why server market penetration for linux is high. In fact linux is not just great for servers its also great for lightweight embedded devices such as home routers, industrial equipment as well as very popular devices like the Raspberry Pi.
If you want simple toys, it works well.
As it happens I use a FDT Perimeter made by Ziess every day at work. It runs an embedded Ubuntu. I love the fact that the mouse pad stops working or the pointer moves everywhere but where you want it, at random times..reboot, and lose the test data. Wonderful.
As it also happens we use a custom Linux for our patient record cards, appointments and accounts. We've discovered a new feature: press two keys-any two keys, in quick succession and the terminal gets covered in garbage. F4--> F10-->exit, re-enter your lost data at your earliest convenience.
As it happens we also have an OPTOS UWDS and Canon Fundus Camera that run XP. Never lost data. Never needed top re-boot due to a system wobbly. Not ONCE in 3years
Thats why , just like windows there are different flavours of Linux , eg Red-Hat and Centos for the server and Ubuntu or Mint on the desktop.
They are just eye candy on top a kernel. The underlying behaviour is the same and not built from the ground up for a desktop.
And the GUI is often inconsistent and poorly thought out. On out mains system we use a KDE variant. The task bar has a digital clock in the corner. Click on it and Calender shows up. So far so good. I see all 7 terminals with the calendar showing. Why? Umm: "How do I close the it" is the reply. Well just hit the cross button....there is no cross button! Click on the desktop? Nope. Eventually after random clicking all over the screen and by chance on the digital clock, it closes. Brain dead design.
Amateur is a very loaded term, it suggests that you are not aware that Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry. It suggests that its not built by paid professionals such as those employed by IBM, RedHat, Canonical and Cisco plus many others. Or perhaps Google who use the Linux kernel as the basis for its operating systems Android and their Desktop ChromeOS. Android has the lions share of the mobile operating system market , greater than iOS and others combined. Thats pretty impressive for what you describe as an "Amateur" os.
Oh please the average user isn't downloading anything made by IBM, Redhat, Cisco. And a major reason why they choose the Linux kernel-and that's all they're doing- is because they don't have to be held hostage by Microsoft's licensing, and they make billions of dollars "maintaining" the systems they sell.
Most users are not aware that they have Linux as a choice.
Enough do for their to be more using it than actually do.
That is because Microsoft actively penalize OEM manufacturers for offering it as an option. Finally any new version of a desktop oriented version of Linux running on supported hardware eg: Ubuntu , is every bit as capable for every day simple things* without going anywhere near a command line.
* Web browsing, email, word processing, image processing
No, its not every bit as capable. And you're only one crappy little update from booting up in a full screen command line. Good luck when that happens
There is actually one other thing thats holding it back , and thats people like you propogating the myth that people seem to think that an operating system that can do all the things above and more is no good for the desktop.
No-on is holding it back.
Its holding itself back.
-
Man, what is the fear of command line and config files in this world.. ;-)
And I'm not talking Linux..
I was just on an interview panel for a Windows "server tech" and most of the applicants seemed afraid of Powershell.
(I love Powershell!!)
Don't get me wrong, GUIs are great.
One of my favorite parts of the Amiga was the GUI.
But if I can do something faster and more efficiently with text, why wouldn't I want to do that?
When I want to send a quick message to someone, I don't call them or skype them. I TEXT them..
Sometimes, even today, text is still better!!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
desiv
Here is a quote from the same discussion in another forum.
The example of how its easier to do a search in a CLI is faster:
type: find ~ -size 10M
That's why people prefer the CLI
People who don't use CLI often will probably type
find = -size 10M
followed by
find ~ -size=10M
followed by
find ~ -size "10M"
followed by
find = -size "10M"
followed by
find size 10M
followed by
find -size "10M"
followed by
find size 10
then give up and look for a GUI way of doing the same thing.
Commands you use often are easy to remember. Commands that are new or different might not be typed correctly the first time.
In a nutshell, that's what it comes down to.
On amiga, the only times I opened shell was to
1. ed s/startup-sequence
2. ed s/user-startup
3. DMS
And you know what, most times I used DMS, I could never remember when to use "write" or "read". And don't get me started on all the different command line switches for the all the other archivers out there.
Who in their right mind would want to remember all of that?
-
Uh oh. I can't hep myself.... :griping:
Man, what is the fear of command line and config files in this world.. ;-)
And I'm not talking Linux..
I was just on an interview panel for a Windows "server tech" and most of the applicants seemed afraid of Powershell.
(I love Powershell!!)
Don't get me wrong, GUIs are great.
One of my favorite parts of the Amiga was the GUI.
But if I can do something faster and more efficiently with text, why wouldn't I want to do that?
When I want to send a quick message to someone, I don't call them or skype them. I TEXT them..
Sometimes, even today, text is still better!!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
desiv
You're ranting at the wrong guy. I love command lines. I've spent 20 years programming for a living. I automate all sorts of stuff with complicated batch files, feel more comfortable finding files via command line than GUI, etc. There are those things GUIs are great for and those things command lines are good for, I take advantage of each as appropriate.
What I was replying to was an earlier post that stated you could not get Linux working at all in many cases without having to drop to the command line to execute some cryptic commands to config something. I think that's a very fair point if it comes to that, and has probably been more true in the past. My latest Linux experience was just plug in USB stick, and use it, no fiddling needed, thus no drop to command line needed to make it work.
-
Assuming an OEM had to decide to ship Linux on all their motherboards and be compatible with all their products, that might be the case.
But that isn't the case..
It's all about sales and marketing.
If Dell could sell a consumer laptop with Linux on it, but Linux wasn't compatible with their corporate laptop chipset, AND that consumer laptop with Linux sold really well, Dell wouldn't care.
They have to spend money to check whether Linux will run on each machine, even if it turns out that they can't. Adding another operating system option will cost money in production, ordering etc. All to support an operating system that they then can't charge you money for, as if they charge the same price then people would likely order it with Windows just in case they ever need it and then install Linux themselves.
It might make sense on some servers, which I believe they will ship with Linux (or have shipped in the past). But laptops, desktops, all in ones etc have such a small margin that it's not really cost effective.
They could force Windows users to subsidise shipping Linux, but they then wouldn't be competitive with OEMs that only ship Windows.
-
"The AARD code was a segment of code in a beta release of Microsoft Windows 3.1 that would determine whether Windows was running on MS-DOS or PC DOS, rather than a competing workalike such as DR-DOS, and would result in a cryptic error message in the latter case." (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code))
"Electronic greeting card firm Blue Mountain Arts has won another round in its battle with Microsoft Corp. Late Thursday, a Santa Clara County (Calif.) Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction stopping Microsoft from setting up filters in its Outlook Express mail program that treated greeting cards from Blue Mountain as junk mail. " (source (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/24451))
"In 2002, Be Inc. sued Microsoft claiming that Hitachi had been dissuaded from selling PCs loaded with BeOS, and that Compaq had been pressured not to market an Internet appliance in partnership with Be. [...] The case was eventually settled out of court for $23.25 million with no admission of liability on Microsoft's part." (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS))
Microsoft has a long history of "sabotaging other products". I'm not saying they're stopping OEMs from bundling Linux, but I wouldn't make tinfoil hat jokes about somebody who's suggesting they do.
Long History. If so I would have though you'd have something more substantial to put forward than a few tenuous items from over 10 years ago.
1. A beta release of Win 3.1 that an over exuberant developer provided certain code for that was NEVER activated in the actual release.
2. A Beta release of Outlook express Spam Filtering that was, again, never released.
3. Microsoft stopping Hitachi from providing a PC with the option to dual boot an alternate OS on a Windows OEM licensed PC, which is against the OEM licence provisions. They did not stop Hitachi from providing the same PCs stand-alone with the (already unfortunately dead) BeOS OS.
IMO, I think we sometimes wish things were different in the IT world than they are today and then look for the tall poppy to blame. Microsoft are surely not the corner cake shop, they are big business and protect their investment with "competitive" (look up the word) "big business" corporate behaviour.
I see your items and raise you a "Microsoft kept Apple from folding in the late 90's".
-
Ah, found the story, she apparently didn't die in an unknown port city heroine den shouting "hello sailor" but the rest is pretty much true.
http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9667184&nav=menu1362_2 (http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9667184&nav=menu1362_2)
-
Long History. If so I would have though you'd have something more substantial to put forward than a few tenuous items from over 10 years ago.
You're funny - what Desktop Operating System that OEMs might have chosen could Microsoft have sabotaged in the last 10 years?
For more recent examples of that kind of behaviour search the net for "UEFI Secure Boot", which in turn is the second coming of "Trusted Computing" - Google the latter in combination with "Palladium" and "criticism" to learn what the rest of us have to worry about regarding Microsoft even if we never use any MS products.
I see your items and raise you a "Microsoft kept Apple from folding in the late 90's".
Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft 'saved' Apple (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036)
I'm not into MS bashing, their "competitive big business corporate behaviour" (I love euphemisms) isn't worse than that of any other IT giant. I wouldn't want to know what Jobs would have done with that kind of market power.
But Microsoft pretty much invented the "reps with black top hats, capes, and stiffly waxed moustaches going around the world sabotaging other products" type, so let's not pretend otherwise.
-
They have to spend money to check whether Linux will run on each machine, even if it turns out that they can't.
Depending on the support contract, that might or might not be a big deal. It's also possible they have a large customer who has requested that, so they already have a process.
Adding another operating system option will cost money in production, ordering etc. All to support an operating system that they then can't charge you money for, as if they charge the same price then people would likely order it with Windows just in case they ever need it and then install Linux themselves.
Who said anything about supporting an OS they can't charge money for? Of course they are going to charge money for it..
Free to them doesn't mean free to the consumer.. ;-) Of course support costs need to be built in.
Also, adding anything will cost money.
That means nothing. It's all about ROI. If it costs money, but they make more money selling it, they'll do it..
If it costs money, and they don't make money selling it, they won't.
It costs them money everytime MS releases a new version of the OS. Doesn't mean they won't support it...
If/when it appeals to customers, then they will support it, regardless of the "cost" to them. That is just the cost of doing business..
-
The example of how its easier to do a search in a CLI is faster..
(includes some CLI mistypes...)
And that is just plain silly.
Of course, there are going to be times that CLI isn't better.
I can't tell you the number of times I've had to go "looking" in my GUI to find the option I want.
Does that mean the GUI is a terrible concept? Nope...
Just means some things are easier to do certain ways..
My point was never that all CLI commands are always better. I never said that..
It was that sometimes, CLI is better and it's silly to say "GUI ONLY" the same way it would be silly to say CLI only..
desiv
-
Hi
Well I see 23 pages of Linux or Windows bashing. All I will add is I have used PClinuxOS since 2007, and while duel booting only went into windows a few times, eventually getting rid of windows (only iTunes is missing and if you must you can get it in vbox). It runs very well, with no notable slowdown over the years, and I'm very happy with it.
Cheers
Rob
-
You're funny - what Desktop Operating System that OEMs might have chosen could Microsoft have sabotaged in the last 10 years?
For more recent examples of that kind of behaviour search the net for "UEFI Secure Boot", which in turn is the second coming of "Trusted Computing" - Google the latter in combination with "Palladium" and "criticism" to learn what the rest of us have to worry about regarding Microsoft even if we never use any MS products.
Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft 'saved' Apple (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036)
I'm not into MS bashing, their "competitive big business corporate behaviour" (I love euphemisms) isn't worse than that of any other IT giant. I wouldn't want to know what Jobs would have done with that kind of market power.
But Microsoft pretty much invented the "reps with black top hats, capes, and stiffly waxed moustaches going around the world sabotaging other products" type, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Yep I agree stop the lies. And you just quoted Zdnet to me to prove a point. I preferred when you used Wikipedia.
BTW I only bash bashing generally. I think (hope) you'll find I haven't bashed either Linux or Windows.
-
Depending on the support contract, that might or might not be a big deal. It's also possible they have a large customer who has requested that, so they already have a process.
Support contract with who? They are more likely to promise Linux for a large customer and just take a bath on the extra cost, sales people will promise the earth if they can smell commission. In the server market though Linux is a big deal, so they do tend to support it there.
Who said anything about supporting an OS they can't charge money for? Of course they are going to charge money for it..
Free to them doesn't mean free to the consumer.. ;-) Of course support costs need to be built in.
Which will mean that buying a computer with Linux could cost more than one with Windows, which is likely going to upset the majority of Linux users who only use it because it meets their communist ideology. Selling with no operating system at all also has a cost beyond the Windows license itself, like the additional cost of support/returns when people find that the operating system they want to install won't work. It's easier and cheaper all round to just say it's Windows only, take it or leave it.
If it costs money, and they don't make money selling it, they won't.
Sure, which is why generally they won't.
It costs them money everytime MS releases a new version of the OS. Doesn't mean they won't support it...
They can spread that cost over a whole lot more systems. The component manufacturers also make the same choices, so the cheaper components are likely to only have windows drivers.
If/when it appeals to customers, then they will support it, regardless of the "cost" to them. That is just the cost of doing business..
It has to appear to enough customers and they have to be willing to pay more if they happen to be in a minority.
For more recent examples of that kind of behaviour search the net for "UEFI Secure Boot", which in turn is the second coming of "Trusted Computing" - Google the latter in combination with "Palladium" and "criticism" to learn what the rest of us have to worry about regarding Microsoft even if we never use any MS products.
UEFI secure boot is one of the most demonised good ideas ever. The criticism is basically "UEFI secure boot is evil because Microsoft is evil". I've yet to see a single valid criticism of it.
It was designed purely to stop malware from installing itself in the boot process, where it could hide itself from any anti virus/malware software.
Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft 'saved' Apple (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036)
The funny thing there is that the headline suggests it's a lie and then goes on to list the many ways that Microsoft saved Apple.
Microsoft bought $150 million of stock & committed to writing apps for the Mac, it saved Apple. Why they did it is irrelevant.
-
The belief that Microsoft "saved" Apple is predicated on the belief that without these events Apple wouldn't be here today. That's a really big assumption.
It was Steve Jobs who saved Apple. Period.
-
And he makes himself look like a fanatical unrealistic fanboi zealot in
3..
2..
1..
...the majority of Linux users who only use it because it meets their communist ideology.
Looking for conversations with rational people who can see the positives and negativies in both OSes..
Obviously not this conversation..
Have a good one..
desiv
-
And he makes himself look like a fanatical unrealistic fanboi zealot in
3..
2..
1..
Looking for conversations with rational people who can see the positives and negativies in both OSes..
Obviously not this conversation..
Have a good one..
desiv
Yeah, But did he mean it as a compliment or an insult? Perhaps he should have said Socialist ideology. Yeah? But if that were the case which OS would be Fascist and which a dictatorship? A topic for another thread.
@Sean. (without prejudice) Is it the "Period." That converts a belief into a statement of fact? I might try that in the future.
-
Trying to get the thread back on track, I'm working on the same thing. Absolutely disgusted with the AOL interface of WinBlows 8.X.
Nobody has mentioned Fedora.
How does it rate?
M. Curtis McCain
-
You know 8.1 in Windows isn't dreadful. It's actually pretty good on a touch screen and not terrible with a trackpad/mouse. The Windows store apps now appear on the status bar, you can shrink them and close them, there are visual clues on the start tiles screen to help you get around. The desktop actually makes some sense now instead of appearing to be a vestigial appendage.
-
And he makes himself look like a fanatical unrealistic fanboi zealot in
3..
2..
1..
Looking for conversations with rational people who can see the positives and negativies in both OSes..
Obviously not this conversation..
Have a good one..
desiv
This thread has been enlightening. So far we've been told that Linux is for Gay Muslim Communists.
Won't someone think of the children?!?
-
Tips on moving to Linux: It can be a fun and rewarding technical experience. Emotionally somewhat like golf.
Tips on life: Be good to the children.
-
This thread has been enlightening. So far we've been told that Linux is for Gay Muslim Communists.
Won't someone think of the children?!?
What?
Think about indoctrinating them?
Thinly disguised Linux called Android is being pandered to that market as we speak.
"Would you like a tablet little boy?"
-
Stay away from the user-friendly distributions. While they make things easier, they're also bloated pieces of crap. Although, optimising them can be quite a learning experience. :D
-
The belief that Microsoft "saved" Apple is predicated on the belief that without these events Apple wouldn't be here today. That's a really big assumption.
It was Steve Jobs who saved Apple. Period.
He did, but he couldn't have done it without Microsoft's investment, they made a life-saving cash injection into the company.
Don't get me wrong, they didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts, back then Microsoft were getting torn apart by the competition and monopolies commissions, particularly in Europe, it was the anti-trust era. Microsoft needed a competitor to still exist, hence they saved Apple.
-
Except the Microsoft save Apple myth is just that. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036 (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036)
-
That amount of cash would have been nice, if it actually even changed hands, but even in 1997, with the absolute garbage they were selling, Apple did seven billion, with a "B", in revenue. Microsoft did just shy of twenty that year and DELL did "only" about $700M more than Apple as one of the most recognized mainstream desktop labels. The MS investment wasn't even half of what Apple spent buying NeXT from Jobs in 1996. He could have personally saw to it Apple got a piddling $150M himself if that was actually a figure significant to the company's future.
Now put those numbers in perspective considering Apple was still a niche player without the benefit of simply being part of the accepted standard on the desktop for mainstream customers who were happy to just buy whatever took the least amount of effort, what they had on their desk at work, what ran all the Microsoft apps they'd been conditioned to think they needed. Boring stuff appropriate for boring boxes, and it would be a few years yet before Apple took dominance in several niche markets, all still in their infancy or practically non-existent yet.
After this, and in the years since, what impact has the presence of MS Office had on the markets Apple dominates in? None, because Microsoft only makes banal, mainstream apps, the kind that dominate markets Apple wasn't significant in before Bill's giant head appeared at the developer's conference and the kind that they're still insignificant players in. The MS deal was mostly symbolic, part of Jobs' role as the messiah returned to the company he built. It was a "if he can do that, he can do anything," sort of deal. It was a show of faith and peacemaking and deal making ability (of course there would be future betrayals of this notion, the pain in the rear of Flash support, for no other reason than customers just not having to deal with the lack of it, forgetting whether it sucks or not).
I'll remind you as well that a few years later Adobe all but left Apple and the Mac platform. Through the early transitions to OSX their software was horribly under-powered because they were running it all through an emulation layer. Adobe is a terribly slow, mostly lazy developer. Still. The OS9 versions outperformed on the same hardware. Premiere had the dubious honor of becoming a not exactly frame accurate nonlinear editor. Folks beholden to Adobe apps started switching platforms to Windows in droves, including some high visibility professional customers. So Apple starts acquiring and then re-branding competitive software that takes big bites out of Adobe and Avid. And they came back. Adobe and some of the customers.
Ten years later they'd more than tripled revenue, no thanks really to word processing or spreadsheets or databases. They did it doing what put them on the map in the first place, making fetishistic products which is something Microsoft has not, cannot and likely will not ever have a hand in.
-
Adobe...
Jettisoning that crapware under Windows would be quite desirable.
Under early Mac OS revisions, Adobe technology was great in enabling WYSIWYG.
These days, I am oh so tired of the slow downs and crashes this stuff engenders.
-
Looking for conversations with rational people who can see the positives and negativies in both OSes..
You'll be lucky, this thread is full of LOL Windows $uck$ & Linux rul3zzzzz!!!!!1
My point was about users, nothing to do with capabilities of the OS. I run Linux on many devices just not on anything that would be classed as a computer.
Linux has some technical positives because they don't care about compatibility, while Microsoft have to try to keep software compiled twenty years ago to run on the latest operating system.
Android is worse, each phone has compatibility issues even when using the same version of Android, it's fork hell. I've been following the development of Cyanogenmod for my obsolete 2011 phone & the way you have to pick and choose from different forks because nothing seems to work properly is insane.