Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: Fixer on October 28, 2007, 05:02:42 AM
-
I kind of need you alternative OS nuts to help me out a bit here.
First the story (longish, sorry):
Being that I don't do much with computers these days (except web, email, media and office stuff etc.) I actually don't have a very powerful x86 machine myself. So far Windows XP SP1 covers those tasks reasonably.
I started thinking of getting into a LAN game with my brothers. I have 3 younger brothers, and they all use Windows XP on fairly modern PCs. We all live together.
So I am thinking about buying a new 64bit Dual Core PC, so I can join in on their gaming.
I was discussing what hardware to get with one of them (he's a bit of a hardware focused guy) and I just happen to let it slip that if I'm getting a 64bit computer that it might be nice to try a 64bit version of Linux.. to really make the most of it (use XP SP2 just for games).
Well, when I mentioned using Linux he essentially went mad at me.
He doesn't see the point - he said "Why? Windows works! It's just there, and it does everything you need it to do, including games which Linux can't".
I started to explain that I think Windows is pretty bad internally, and crashes for silly reasons.
I also mentioned that I don't mind XP but Vista is awful with inconsistent GUI, poor backwards compatibility and a resource hog that takes away the point of using it as a modern OS. (Last time I tried Vista anyway.)
He then mentioned that the last time he tried Linux (an old version of SUSE, I think) he couldn't even do something simple that was done with a few clicks on Windows. I agreed that you have to use the terminal sometimes for simple things on Linux but I also explained distros like Ubuntu are really improving on that...
I also said the last time I tried Ubuntu I could do 85% of what I do on computers very easily (games not included in that stat).
And so the debate raged on.. Eventually he started getting tired of arguing, got drunk and then put South Park on.
Near the end of the argument our points got very speculative/assumptions.
I was saying if Vista didn't sort out its backwards compatibility problems.. that it eventually wouldn't be the main OS anymore, especially considering you can run Windows XP on Macs too.
He started saying that Linux has no money, doesn't advertise and essentially has no serious desktop userbase (he was drunk at this stage, the actual line was more like "none of ma fckn friends uses it, nobody uses it!")
.. I had to explain that Linux is at least used seriously in the Server Industry.
Another more valid point he made was that I, personally, would probably get sick of having two OSes on my system and would eventually back away from the dual-boot scenario to the more simple "use the OS that does everything for me and works scenario".
That has yet to be seen.
As for now this is where you guys come in...
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market? :crazy:
- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
- How commercial is Linux?
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol :lol:
Well these are just some of the questions that came up in our 'heated' argument. I know some of them can't be definitively answered, which is part of the reason I posted them on this forum with its ensemble lot of techies, geeks and generally awesome dudes! ;-)
Hopefully our collective knowledge/intelligence/resources will suffice.
Hope you can help. :-)
-
My 2c worth:
XP will do just fine until Microsoft stops releasing fixes for it - this is probably the OS to stick with for now if you've already bought and paid for it (though if you're stuck at SP1, I wonder!!!)
Vista - avoid unless you're buying a new PC with it preinstalled or really really need to play a game that requires DirectX 11.
64-bit Windows - carefully check your hardware and ensure there are (tested) drivers available.
Ubuntu makes a great secondary (or primary!) OS. For the usual basics of web browsing, email, office-type applications, graphics, etc, there are massive amounts of free software, all pre-packaged and just a couple of mouse clicks away.
There aren't usually any dual-boot issues, unless you install Ubuntu first and then Windows (where Windows will happily temporarily splatter any non-MS boot menu). Recent versions have full NTFS read/write support so you can get to your Windows files from Linux and will quite happily run quite a bit of Windows-based software via WINE.
Apple's Leopard will probably do well on the proprietary hardware that runs it, but will always be a niche market.
And as for AmigaOS 4... Cough.... Well, the three AmigaOne users and the four people with classic Amigas and PPC accelerators held together with sticky tape and string should run it and take over the world just fine! :-D
I have a mixture of hardware and OSes, and use Amigas for nostalgia, WinXP for stuff that requires the use of commercial software, Ubuntu for a web/file server and to do usual day to day tasks like web browsing / emailing / creating documents, etc and XUbuntu for the same on an elderly laptop that would otherwise run Windows like a dog.
Just my opinion!
- Ali
-
Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
Definitely. If you are happy with a Unix type OS, Ubuntu is a great Linux distro. I've always preferred Debian based distro's over Red Hat type.
Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
I never liked LILO or GRUB, I've often had problems trying to get Windows and Linux to co-exist, but there are other (sometimes commercial) alternatives. You might have more luck than I have.
What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
I think it's safe to say that Vista will be the top dog eventually, and it's shelf life may end up being extended like 98 and XP. After that, who knows.
Yes, XP has a few more years yet. Many people still use 98, and the signs are that XP could keep going for just as long.
Leopard will only replace Windows when Apple decide to let it run on any old PC hardware.
The size of the Linux userbase is hard to guage, certainly some large companies use it or are considering the change. The average home user such as my wife is clueless about it though and isn't likely to make the switch without being pushed.
Linux is very commercial, at least in certain areas. Gaming is one area that is lacking, but Cedega is starting to make up for that.
AmigaOS4 doesn't have a large enough base of hardware to start to dominate, that could be changed with a move to x86 though. Whether it will happen is another question, one which I couldn't answer.
The bottom line is: Linux is free compared to the ?100+ for Windows, it offers great choice but this can sometimes be confusing (eg Gnome or KDE, RPM or DEB etc). Check the Cedega web page, if they support the games you are likely to be playing, give Ubuntu a try, it costs nothing.
________
LOLOL (http://lolol.net/)
-
Personally, when running older games, Linux with Wine is compatible with more games than Windows. Most of the focus of Wine is making the new Windows games work on Linux (esp. WoW, etc.).
I have a quad-boot (Fedora, Windows, AROS and Amiga Forever(KX Light), and I almost NEVER boot directly into the other partitions. If I really need to use Windows, I boot it in the VM. If I want to test the latest version of AROS, I point the VM at its ISO. I usually just run the latest version of eUAE configured to point to the AF directory when I want to use PPaint, etc.
So, the only times I EVER boot into Windows, for any reason, is to play the few games which need direct access to the graphics card and don't work with Wine (yet). And that's almost never (I like 'Classic' games).
On the Windows as future OS front, I tried the beta of Windows Server 2008 recently (will play with a bit more soon) and find that it feels IDENTICAL to Windows Server 2003. Sure, I know it is different, but it feels the same.
So, I think Windows is stagnating again. Linux is great, and easy to make your primary OS. But, if you need to use MS' products (Office?), install Windows as a VM. Actually, having browser windows and stuff outside of Windows that I can force to stay on top and still work in Windows is one of the greatest time-savers I've ever come across (since my old Amiga's peripherals keep croaking...).
I think most people's issue with Linux these days is ignorant defiance. It has always been the 'difficult' Unix-like OS that only geeks used, and that is how the predjudice will remain for some time to come.
jaminJay
"Rambling, as usual."
-
If someone gets pissed at you for your OS choice, you can only assume that they are way to invested in their current choice. This is even more true if they have a problem with you dual booting.
The one thing I would suggest if you decide to dual boot is to get a second hard drive. Hard drives are cheap these days. This way you can unplug your your Windows drive when you install Linux, and unplug your Linux drive when you install Windows. This means you will have 0% chance of having any kind of GRUB/LILO boot problems caused by dual booting, even when and if you need to reinstall one of your OSes.
You can then use the BIOS boot selector to pick which drive you want to boot to.
-
Fixer dude, your whole conversation is speculation. I don't even see the complication in decision making:
If you've got the computer and you want or feel like installing/running Linux, AROS, or whatever other OS and you CAN, I say do it, just because you CAN.
No matter what bro, sister, priest, or whoever says. What harm could it cause? It's yet another opportunity to learn and expand your experience, knowledge, brain (scientists claim that our brain growth doesn't stop at early age - new neural connections continue to happen and be created).
Not trying it, well then, I can see a lot of harm: lost opportunity to learn and expand your knowledge and experience (even negative experiences are helpful: they tell you what not to try next time, or what to improve yourself in next time)
Ignorance is NOT bliss. It's poverty, mental as well as monetary.
Cheers mate, for being lucky enough to have options!
-
Leopard is lovely, but Microsoft is a LONG way from being doomed by anything Apple does for the foreseeable future. There is a slow trickle to the Mac platform but that's all it's going to be.
I'd stay well away from Vista, which was essentially forced on a user base who didn't want it. Typical Microsoft really. We'll only make DX10 for Vista so in three years you HAVE to buy our product if you want to play games.
If you want a Windows platform, get XP. Be quick though since I hear MS will not be selling any more licenses for it early next year. Their stealth way of taking away your choice and forcing you into Vista.
Linux is a good system, but be prepared to fiddle with it.
As for the hardware, get a PC and you can run Linix AND XP. Use the latter for your games and the former for everything else.
Or if you want a Mac, you can run XP as well as Mac OSX and get the best of both worlds there as well. However, the graphics cards in Macs tend to be a litlle behind the curve when compared with gaming PCs.
And of course, you can always use an Amiga because there is nothing like that smell from old power supplies and circuit boards. You know the one. The 'is it going to catch fire?' kind of smell.
-
Don't worry about what your brother or anybody else has to say about OS choice. People for the most part learn how to use one thing and pretty much stick with it. If somebody who uses windows all the time and doesn't have specific computing needs, linux will probably piss them off even if everything works. My girlfriend has used windows her whole life, and when she for some odd reason runs into a situation where she has to use one of my macs, it buggs her.
She gets caught up on stupid stuff like location of icons and keyboard short cuts. Oh well.
People for some odd reason seem to in general think that they have to "switch" to one thing or another.
It seems you want a new machine. Go ahead and get that shiny new, fast windows pc, and take Ubuntu for a spin on the older one. I have windows machines, linux machines, macs, and some amigas. I don't need to switch, I use them all where ever it is appropriate. Your average computer user who just reads email, surfs the web and plays video games will never understand this concept, and debating one OS or hardware platform over another is just a waste of time.
-
I really only use PCs for gaming, and I'd be just as happy if I never saw more of Windows than the Steam client, assuming a larger selection of games was available through its interface. As far as I'm concerned, Windows is just the freight train that games have to drag along behind them.
Just about every other modern operating system allows games to crank the detail levels. Vista especially limits the ability to move the sliders to the right. I've read many, many posts in support forums for several games that verify this.
Regardless of the operating system I use, I strongly doubt that Microsoft will produce anything that will satisfy my craving for "getting my hands dirty". Windows is just too easy to hose without a ridiculous amount of study.
-
You can always set up a dual boot and try both out, or use one OS (Ubuntu) for al daily tasks and Windows for games that don't run under Ubuntu.
One pro for 64bit linux versus 64bit windows, most tasks/programs are 64bit whilst most programs in 64bit windows are 32bit running "emulated" tho you may never ever notice that.
As for XP vs Vista.
Wel forget XP 64 bit. The least supported OS next after ME.If you want to be sure "everything" runs get XP. That does mean however that you can't use more then 3.2 - 3.8 GB ram depending on the hardware and it is less secure.
If you want to run a 64bit Windows go for Vista. I've been running it since its release, almost everything runs on it except a few very old games. Most mainstream hardware has support for it. (And no, UAC isn't bothering me at all, I don't have the habit of installing new programs every second..)
And offcourse thins work differently in a Linux OS. The same way things work differently compared to AmigaOS or AtariTOS.. What's the point of having more OSes out there if they are all the same..
-
I will be upgrading my PC once more so that I can play more current video games. BF2, 2142, and a few others.
DX 10 support will not be available for XP, only Vista. Thats a deal breaker for me.
I think/hope it will be my last Windows PC.
Nothing wrong with MS products, I'm just tired of seeing that little flag.
I believe that the average user can meet all the computer needs they might have with Ubuntu, and certainly Mac OS.
I wish I could afford a Mac, but Ubuntu seems just to me.
There is no future for Windows at my home...
-
So, I think Windows is stagnating again.
Its always felt stagnant to me. I tried Vista on a quad core last week and it felt like jogging with a fire hydrant.
Nag, nag, nag...
"Are you sure you want to do this?" yes
"Are you really, really sure you want to do this?" YES
"Are you really, really, really sure you don't want to do |this| instead?" YES, GODDA**IT!
-
Finally, a good topic to put in my two cents.. :-)
Honestly, I am VERY impressed with Ubuntu linux. Just about a week or so ago 7.10 came out, and when I tried the live boot, wireless worked! Everything I threw at it, it did VERY swiftly. This was on a PC with a 2.4ghz P4. Heck, even if you have 256mb on linux, it takes you a good distance.
I was thinking the same thing as far as what the primary OS will be. Mac OS X is becoming more favorable and I notice alot of people having a mac laptop in my college. Vista im not too impressed with. Not because it just came out and lack of things, but the fact that it is "usable" in a system with a dual core 3800+ and 2gb of ram! :-?
My prediction is that Microsoft OS will start to decline, and either Mac OS or Linux will eventually take. Maybe not 10 years from now, but later. :-D :-)
You should look at Cedega for linux if you want to play PC games. Its not freeware, but it does one heck of a job for playing games. It even does world of warcraft! :lol:
Either way, if you do web surfing, messaging, and a few games, then Ubuntu would be a great choice.
btw, show your friend Ubuntu lol, he will crap when he sees it booting off a CD and how much you can do. :-)
-
You guys actually had a row over that?
Just try a few live CD distros, see if it's for you. If so, you can always have a dual boot.
-
@Karlos:
They were drinking.
-
InTheSand wrote:
My 2c worth:
XP will do just fine until Microsoft stops releasing fixes for it - this is probably the OS to stick with for now if you've already bought and paid for it (though if you're stuck at SP1, I wonder!!!)
It seems the PC I'm using now (old P3) doesn't like anything over SP1. My friend tried SP2 on it before he gave it to me and it apparently just ran sluggish on everything.
SP1 seems to work fine. I just make sure to set up the firewall properly before connecting to the net for the first time and I also disable Java in Firefox. I don't appear to get Viruses. I do a spyware scan now and then though.
AndrewBell wrote:
Yes, XP has a few more years yet. Many people still use 98, and the signs are that XP could keep going for just as long.
Hi Andrew.
Yeh I was using 98 myself for ages after I gave up with Amiga. In-fact, I only ever really went to XP on a whim.
I tried XP out "for the heck of it". I don't think I realised at the time that it would be the OS so many people are having trouble breaking free from. I personally thought 98 did everything it needed to when I had it - the same way people think about XP now I guess.
benJamin wrote:
Personally, when running older games, Linux with Wine is compatible with more games than Windows. Most of the focus of Wine is making the new Windows games work on Linux (esp. WoW, etc.).
I have a quad-boot (Fedora, Windows, AROS and Amiga Forever(KX Light), and I almost NEVER boot directly into the other partitions. If I really need to use Windows, I boot it in the VM.
I don't think people realise exactly how much can be done without using Windows. The belief of the situation that Linux doesn't play PC games is also nowhere near as vast as some make out.
I like a lot of old games myself, so Wine sounds excellent.
Belial6 wrote:
The one thing I would suggest if you decide to dual boot is to get a second hard drive.
You can then use the BIOS boot selector to pick which drive you want to boot to.
The only real thing that I'm worried about is something I came across once when trying Ubuntu:
Whenever I had a SATA and a PATA HDD in at the same time it basically refused to make the GRUB boot area thingy on the SATA drive (which was naturally where I wanted the OS installed).
Not that huge a deal - I could just s*d IDE – kinda hoping they've fixed the bug by now though. If not I'll prolly do it your way. Cheers!
da9000 wrote:
Fixer dude, your whole conversation is speculation. I don't even see the complication in decision making:
If you've got the computer and you want or feel like installing/running Linux, AROS, or whatever other OS and you CAN, I say do it, just because you CAN.
Thinking about the argument I had with him again, in retrospect, I should have just said that sentence of yours I've highlighted (bold) straight after he went mad at me for mentioning Linux.
It would have saved a lot of time. Unfortunately I have this bad habit of getting into the most stupid of conversations and arguments with my brothers. You know how it is...
Not trying it, well then, I can see a lot of harm: lost opportunity to learn and expand your knowledge and experience (even negative experiences are helpful: they tell you what not to try next time, or what to improve yourself in next time)
Oh I definitely plan to try it. I ain't going the Vista route and what's the point of having a 64bit machine without a 64bit OS?
It's pretty much a deciding factor for me now I think. Compare the next-gen OSes, and Vista just doesn't quite make the cut.
Chubbyrain wrote:
I'd stay well away from Vista, which was essentially forced on a user base who didn't want it. Typical Microsoft really. We'll only make DX10 for Vista so in three years you HAVE to buy our product if you want to play games.
Yeh I heard about this; disgusting really.
Still, another reason for me not to migrate to that OS. Not that I would anyway, when navigating Vista there's something about it that I just can't stand!
koaftder wrote:
Don't worry about what your brother or anybody else has to say about OS choice. People for the most part learn how to use one thing and pretty much stick with it. If somebody who uses windows all the time and doesn't have specific computing needs, linux will probably piss them off even if everything works. My girlfriend has used windows her whole life, and when she for some odd reason runs into a situation where she has to use one of my macs, it buggs her.
She gets caught up on stupid stuff like location of icons and keyboard short cuts. Oh well.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there as far as my brother is concerned.
When someone says I've been taught how to use the computer or know how to use one, what they really mean is they know how to operate Windows. If kids grow up with them, casually using them, then anything else would be like learning a new language I guess.
I still don't understand why most schools and things (in this country) force you to use a commercial OS and office software.
-
@Karlos
LMAO
Do you have brothers? :-D
My brothers and I have got into fist fights over less than this!
-
seer wrote:
If you want to run a 64bit Windows go for Vista. I've been running it since its release, almost everything runs on it except a few very old games. Most mainstream hardware has support for it. (And no, UAC isn't bothering me at all, I don't have the habit of installing new programs every second..)
I want to go 64bit.
Options I can think of are XP 64bit, Vista and Linux.
I'm not using 64bit XP for reasons that you and others have stated. I don't want to use Vista at all.
It's really just a case now of choosing Linux distros. I'll prolly try Ubuntu out for awhile.
-
kd7ota wrote:
Finally, a good topic to put in my two cents.. :-)
Honestly, I am VERY impressed with Ubuntu linux. Just about a week or so ago 7.10 came out, and when I tried the live boot, wireless worked! Everything I threw at it, it did VERY swiftly. This was on a PC with a 2.4ghz P4. Heck, even if you have 256mb on linux, it takes you a good distance.
Oh acutally one of my other brothers was very tempted to use Ubuntu on a spare laptop as a dedicated machine.
The only reason he didn't (in the end) was because he couldn't get the wireless working.
If it's sorted now I'll have to mention it to him. Thanks.
-
AndrewBell wrote:
Yes, XP has a few more years yet. Many people still use 98, and the signs are that XP could keep going for just as long.
I've been a 98SE user, got it on a couple of machines. But, it's definitely end of the road these days, no more updates for stuff like DivX web player, and other browser plugins. Gotta give these puppies another 256MB of RAM each then install XP.
As an Amiga user, linux looks a lot less scary than it does to a PC (only) user, you can see similarities in the root structure of the disk and it posesses much of the same logic. It has it's equivalents of the devs drawer, the C drawer, the startup-sequence, S. However, I don't think the 64bit version is mature enough yet for a desktop OS, it has the same problem as 64bit 'doze, not enough drivers.
I keep wanting, I keep trying to make linux my main OS, I always get stuck on something though. However, that's quite likely because I try and mess with it too much and am too lazy to go correct my own mistakes, (I keep wanting to feel more involved, and tinker under the hood). Some live CD versions are very good these days and are very functional right off the CD.
Now if your brother is getting angry about it, I'd say he's scared. Scared of being made obsolete, of learning that the way he knows how to do neat stuff isn't really the "right way" just a barely adequate coping strategy to get around microsoft's idea of how people should be forced to do things. Perhaps he's scared of making decisions. Linux gives you a lot of choice, which is why it seems confusing. People who are more comfortable with having decisions made for them by a faceless corporation whose only motive is profit, would naturally get scared and angry when faced with decisions.
Vista, ohhhh vista, yes, MS is going to have to work a miracle with service pack 1. At the moment it's as responsive and productive as windows ME on a 486sx33 with 16MB of RAM, when it's installed on a dual core with a gigabyte or more. Now MS has had a history of bringing lower end and marginally obsolete systems to their knees with each OS release.... but an OS that brings high end and brand new preinstalled systems to thier knees... that's a new one even for them. My wife's laptop, 2Ghz A64, 1GB RAM, preinstalled vista (not the only thing I've tried it on btw) can't run a particular desktop game she likes at full speed. On windows 98SE/XP it runs smooth on anything around 3-400Mhz, on a 233MMX it's choppy.... it's about as choppy on that system with vista. That says to me right there "Vista makes your PC 8-10 times slower." Opening file windows and moving or deleting files takes FOREVER, small files, documents, not multi gig DVD rips. Anyhoo, you can buy the fastest dual cores on the market load it up with RAM and get a user experience that's about like using XP on a 667Mhz coppermine celeron with 128MB of RAM...(or a live CD linux on a P120 with 64MB ;-) )
Anyhoo, make informed decisions, your bro sounds like a victim of FUD,
RW222
-
Fixer wrote:
He doesn't see the point - he said "Why? Windows works! It's just there, and it does everything you need it to do, including games which Linux can't".
My, his view of the world is so limited. And judging from the fact that he judges a computer system based on how many clicks it takes to accomplish something...
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
That's the wrong question. The right questionS are 'Do I need a 64-bit OS?' and 'If I do need something 64-bit, would Linux/Ubuntu be sufficient?'.
To answer, based on your usage patterns: no, you do not need a 64-bit OS, nor a 64-bit CPU, for that matter. This hardware was developed to have the machine cope with lots of memory beyond the 4 GB barrier in a linear fashion, so without the use of paging; as well as grab more instructions from main memory per clock tick so it would run faster. Only people who actually use machine all the time, and consider a load of '1' to be 'rather low' or a memory usage of 4 GB or more to be 'peanuts' will benefit from migrating to this kind of hardware.
The only programs your computer will have to work for are, indeed, the games you plan on playing, but considering that the rate at which new 'kewl' games appear is now measured in the single digit numbers per year, I wouldn't worry about getting the fastest CPU, or that it's not a 64-bit native multiple core device. Memory bandwidth and graphics card performance are far more important bottlenecks for the time being. Less, of course, if you lower your standards for eye candy.
In addition, support for 64-bit drivers is still shaky. People are learning to program good drivers again, and that takes time. Your El Cheapo network or sound card might not be supported in a 64-bits driver, negating much of the advantages of going 64-bits to begin with. Caveat emptor.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
The question is again wrong; you must ask yourself what you would need Linux for in the first place to make your system dual-boot. If everything you do is handled by XP at the moment, then I wouldn't really bother with Linux. It's more stable and robust than XP, true, but quite frankly, if you don't push your machine to the limit all the time, and stick to single-user usage then XP is pretty solid for regular use too. I've been using Win2K for years now, and the only times it crashed on me were because of flaky hardware. I am still using Linux because some of the programs I need for my work are not available in a Windows-edition, or require me to run all sorts of ixemul-like emulation software, harming performance.
Another reason to go with Linux is that you are free from weird world domination ideas from Microsoft, as well as more or less free from nasty worms, viruses and trojans. However, a double firewall and a good security policy on your machine can turn XP into a formidable bastion already. For regular use, if you know what you are doing...? XP will do just fine.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
Vista is XP On Steroids; all the bad things without any of the good ideas MS had when they were developing this OS. The new minikernel demonstrated by a lead developer the other day is actually an interesting development. Microsoft had to, I think, because Vista brought the company to its knees. If they can pull it off, then there will finally be something elegant coming out of Redmond. It won't be finished until 2010, and by that time your machine will be obsolete to play the games with your brothers anyway.
Then again, who am I kidding. It's Microsoft.
- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
It will of course be dominant, but not as easily as it used to be. Mac's Leopard is, from what I hear, quite a sexy thing; and Linux isn't sitting still either. Things have improved a LOT since the days of RedHat 6 and Slackware 5.
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
In 2007, I'm still using Win2K, and the only snag I encountered was with Logitech's Revolution mouse which was Vista-only for no good reason at all. Draw your own conclusions.
- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market? :crazy:
Perhaps. I doubt it. It will make MS sweat a little bit more, though.
- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
Noone can tell you exactly. Current estimates run in the tens of millions of users, I believe. It filled gaps in low-cost environments (the $100-computer runs Linux), and excells in small business server situations, where the reliability of Unix can be used at no great cost. It is the staple of the scientific community, for it allows cheap parallel processing at a fraction of the cost of a genuine supercomputer. Currently some city councils are running tests to see if Linux can be used as a full desktop replacement OS---München was the first city to migrate, and Steve 'Fling Them Chairs' Ballmer was so ticked about Linux gaining a foothold that he personally flew to München to offer the council a deal They Indeed Could Refuse. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few more years.
- How commercial is Linux?
As commercial as you want it to be. I'm not sure why you ask this.
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol :lol:
Haha. No.
-
I use Linux and Windows XP daily in dual boot, standalone and server configurations so I guess I'm quite used to them all :-D however for getting windows and linux to dual boot this is an excelletn guide and the one I followed the first time: How-tp dual boot XP and Linux (http://apcmag.com/5459/dualboot_ubuntu_and_windows_xp)
So that'll make your life much easier. I haven't encountered any serious issues with the 64-bit 7.10 version of Ubuntu that I use for the dual boot machine beyond getting flash to work and one audio library for development (programming) that was closed source and only available in 32-bit flavour :/
As for games, no I don't game much on my Linux box except for UT2004 which gets a 5% to 20% framerate improvement under Linux :-D
Windows XP will certainly do for another 5 years or so, at least until Microsoft stop supporting it for businesses. So far I've found every version of Vista to be a complete pig to get used too. Far worse than my initial switch to Linux a few years ago and that was pretty bad.
I don't know what the future of Windos is, but I'm pretty sure that I'll be using some version of it on one of my machines. The rest will be running Linux.
There are games for Linux as well though, they just tend not to be that well known or the market leaders. With the exceptions being the Quake and Unreal Tournament series of games. After that you'll have to investigate something like the WINE project or Cedega (which is a subscription service but supports a lot of windows games under linux).
Theres also a lot of open source games for Linux and absolutely every emulated games system can be found for it :-)
So, I think people are slowly switching away from Windows, not in truly useful numbers but in drips and drabs they're getting the idea that they can get a whole OS for free if they really want it.. and that is a competitive price point ;)
Andy
-
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
Absolutely. I love linux in all its flavours. Well... Debian still has me a bit perplexed but I enjoy playing with it nonetheless. Ubuntu surprised me with its simplicity.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
As mentioned above somewhere, it works great as long as Windows is installed first.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
It will continue ahead in leaps and bounds. While there's a small minority heading over to Apple, Linux or whatever, Windows is what new machines come installed with. It will continue to be popular (at least the most widely used), because it's almost everywhere. M$ will have to screw the pooch something awful to lose their market share.
- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
As above....
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
Without a doubt. M$ still supports Win2k and it's 8 years old.
- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market?
Never used a Mac. I saw a quote years ago (dunno who it was) that said "A Mac is a computer with training wheels that can't be taken off". Hence, I've never bought one. :)
- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
Pass. No idea.
- How commercial is Linux?
Have a look at the server market. :) For me, though, I use Windows because it's simple. It does what I want it to.
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol
*cough* I've been waiting (as have most people here) for 15 years to hear something positive. No news as yet. *sigh*
-
@Fixer
As far as I know, Ubuntu 7.04 didnt have the wireless integraded in the OS, but when version 7.10 came out, they did.
You can try it on the live boot and see what all hardware it already installed for. The only thing for sure it will not install during the live boot is the graphics drivers. Sound, USB, wireless cards, etc should be preloaded if it has the drivers.
Eck! Now I want to run home now and get it installed on my shuttle machine. :-D
-
You can try it on the live boot and see what all hardware it already installed for. The only thing for sure it will not install during the live boot is the graphics drivers. Sound, USB, wireless cards, etc should be preloaded if it has the drivers.
Odd, because i can swear my old 6.10 version did.. It even had a gui for setting up your wireless card.
-
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
It actually does good as a first OS.
I use ubuntu linux 90% of the time and only boot windows when i feel like playing windows games.
Your brother seems to judge the OS based on a version he tried ages ago, even though linux has matured alot and the fact that the experience changes depending on your choice of distro.
-
Tomas wrote:
You can try it on the live boot and see what all hardware it already installed for. The only thing for sure it will not install during the live boot is the graphics drivers. Sound, USB, wireless cards, etc should be preloaded if it has the drivers.
Odd, because i can swear my old 6.10 version did.. It even had a gui for setting up your wireless card.
I may be wrong too. Maybe since it knew that the wireless worked with the other card I had in, it did it. :-)
Think the card I had in it before just wasnt supported. The wireless card I have now is a TP-Link 54mbit.
-
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
Absolutely. I use it everyday in an office environment and at home.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
A better primary OS. Windows is nothing but an inconvenience to me.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
Hopefully bleak. They are losing ground on a daily basis with more people migrating to OS X/Ubuntu
-- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
MS peddles to accounting types, not technical types. The accounting types then mandate these standards. I've seen this happen personally. Vista won't be dominant because it's utter crap, but Windows won't ever be completely gone. Though even our Windows admin at work uses Ubuntu at home so who knows? :)
-- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
If I had to use Windows I'd use 2000.. so I guess it may work.
-- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market?
Technically yes.. but the problem is, people are afraid to switch. My wife used my Mac Mini for about a month. She admitted it was faster and less problematic but since MS made Office work somewhat differently on the MacOS she insisted on going back to XP. Why? She didn't want to spend time re-learning a few things even if it meant saving headaches down the road.
-- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
It's small but growing, especially with distros like Ubuntu who have gone to great lengths to make a pleasant desktop experience. We have a lot of OS X/Ubuntu users at my office.
-- How commercial is Linux?
I do not understand the question
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol
Not with Bill at the helm
-
My two cents...
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
It depends on your needs and the level of interopibility you expect. You'll run into the same issues on 64-bit Linux that you'll run into on 64-bit Windows--the same issues that have plagued all processor transitions: hardware support, assumptions about the size of 'int,' etc. Unless you plan on specifically taking advantage of your 64-bit processor, stick with 32-bit. The transition is a bit easier in Linux, as 64-bit varieties have been available for quite some time, e.g. Alpha and Sparc (sort of). Very few Windows applications, server products included, are written to take advantage of a 64-bit architecture.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
Assuming it's set up correctly, you won't have any issues at all.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
Windows will continue to dominate the market for the foreseeable future. Not everyone realizes this, but Windows wasn't Microsoft's first choice in operating system advancement; however, Windows 3.0 outsold OS/2 millions to one, and the market itself made the decision to stick with Windows a simple one.
-- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
In the consumer desktop space, Linux isn't a serious competitor. OS X is fun, but you have to drink Apple's Kool-Aid to play. Apple's laptop market share is steadily increasing, but I think Boot Camp, Parallels, and now VMware have had a lot to do with that. I love my MacBook Pro, but I run Windows more often than I run OS X.
-- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
Microsoft will continue to support Windows XP until the next major release of Windows, i.e. the one after Vista. They may, however, choose to cheat and pull another Windows Server 2003 R2 type release (in which support for Windows 2000 was discontinued). As has been noted, sales of Windows XP will end sooner rather than later, but it's support that's the primary concern. As long as there are enough Windows XP users in the marketplace, and there will be for quite some time, hardware and software vendors will continue to support Windows XP as well.
-- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market?
Apple's computer products are still a niche market, regardless of what Apple would have us believe. It's a good thing the iPod rules the portable music player market. Without it, there'd be no Apple.
-- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
I think the numbers are exagerated, as they tend to be based on downloads of distributions and not an actual installed base. Linux is the swiss army knife of operating systems. It does many, many things very well, but very few distributions do those things out of the box. Expect perceived desktop performance to continue to decline as more and more focus shifts towards the server market.
-- How commercial is Linux?
In the server market, very commercial. Novell and Red Hat are doing quite well selling support contracts. In the desktop market, not so much.
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out Lol
You're right, that question was a laugh. ;-)
EDIT
Speaking to the technical aspects of Windows and Linux, it's a toss. Most of the stability issues in Windows are the result of poorly written third-party device drivers. And like anything else, operating systems are only as good as the person using them.
Most of us here really enjoy playing with different operating systems; however, I run Windows 99% of the time. If I need to do *nixy stuff, I use Cygwin or Microsoft's Windows Services for UNIX. That way, I can still play Bioshock--kick ass game, by the way--or do whatever else I want to do that requires Windows.
Trev
-
http://www.reactos.org
An open Source version of Windows XP
opensource and windows compatible I WIN!
:-D :lol:
-
For the ones who didn't understand the commercial Linux question, I only asked about that because it was one of my brother's drunken rants as a point for Linux not being a real desktop solution.
It's silly I know, but I think he just meant that only advertised products stand a chance in the real world. He clearly has no concept of the open-source market.
As someone mentioned earlier he prolly is a victim of FUD.. or just very narrow-minded.
-
If you want to try Linux straight away, there's one really great solution, install the OS on a USB drive (incidentally this can be done for XP too, should you decide you don't need it that much on your new machine).
I haven't tried doing this with Ubuntu (though a quick search indicates it can be done: http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2007/09/21/usb-ubuntu-704-persistent-install/), but I have put Slax on a USB drive (http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2006/09/20/all-in-one-usb-slaxzip), which was very easy to set up.
-
I have tried Ubuntu 7.04, Fedora, PCLinuxOS.
PCLinuxOS works best out of the box, and looks and feels very windows-like. The best distro for ex-windows users.
Fedora not as user-friendly, but rock solid stability.
Ubuntu: stability issues, I dont like gnome.
It will be about 2 years before you can replace Windows with a Linux distro, if hardware vendors get on board (Dell already has). If you can't wait, the best Unix for home use is OS X, plus get console for games (Direct x 10 is worse in many ways than Direct X9 ever was)
Never had any problem with dual boot Linux and windows.
The thing about Linux though is the way folders are laid out and named eg there are some really important useful files in a directory called "etc" WTF. And it goes on.. eg fstab i mean there is no "libs" for libraries, startup-sequence or user-startup, unless you already know what these files are called.. it really is not all that user-friendly.
On the forums most Linux users often say stay away from 64 bit Linux as its unstable and often incompatible and not significantly faster.
-
Shamus_ wrote:
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
Without a doubt. M$ still supports Win2k and it's 8 years old.
I use Windows 2000, but note that it's not just a matter of how long M$ supports it, but also how long other hardware and software manufacturers support it.
E.g., for ATI graphics cards, I couldn't the latest drivers for my Radeon 9800, and I don't think the latest cards are supported at all. I have a NVIDIA 8600 in the post, and I fear it's likely I will finally have to upgrade to XP to use it at all.
Also my motherboard complained a lot, in that the driver CD refused to work with 2000, but I eventually managed to do it by hand.
Quite annoying really - the OS is fine, but I have to pay the Microsoft tax just to use the latest hardware.
OTOH, I suspect that they will support XP for longer - 2000 was never a mainstream gaming/home OS. Also XP was around for much longer than 2000 was.
-
-- Is 64bit Linux/Ubuntu a worthwhile alternative to use as a general use OS?
Have run 64-bit Linux for years, first on the Alpha, now on the SPARC and Athlon. As it has been 64-bit for years, a lot more 64-bit support than I found under Windows.
-- Does Linux make a good secondary OS? (any dual-boot issues, for instance?)
No. It makes a great OS, weither primary secondary or on a whim.
-- What is the future of Microsoft's Windows operating system?
They have to abandon legacy support within 3-5 years as it is now an anchor around it's neck. The kernel is nice, but the user-land has so much legacy that you would never know.
- Will Vista be dominant, or crash and burn against competitors Linux/Mac?
Mac's sales are soaring against Windows sales. Linux is also blossoming as well. While Vista will not crash and burn, it will seriously hurt Microsoft in the long term. I call it the {bleep} child of ME and Bob for a reason.
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
Yes, but do not go past SP2. SP3 is adding in Vista-like features.... read "hit the brakes".
- Is Leopard gonna kick their buts out the desktop market?
Leopard is showing itself to be the superior OS in both the desktop and server markets. Apple has a winner on its hands.
- How big is the desktop Linux userbase anyway? What gaps in the market has Linux filled?
Estimates vary from tens to hundreds of millions. Millions upon millions of people run it without knowing it within embedded devices such as the TiVO every day infact.
- How commercial is Linux?
Quite.
-- Is Amiga coming back to take them all out? Lol
It could if someone were to drag out all of the Amiga corporate guys (all corps involved in the lawsuits, and the Merlancia guys for good measure) and kick the to the curb.
-
downix wrote:
- Will Windows XP do for another 5 years?
Yes, but do not go past SP2. SP3 is adding in Vista-like features.... read "hit the brakes".
Warning: This advice is from someone who cannot tell the difference between a PCI connector and a Mac CPU connector, even when it's written on the web page he's looking at.
XPSP3 will contain around 80 security updates and hotfixes. Do not run without.
Details of the 3 Vista features that are added can be found here:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Gets-a-Taste-of-Windows-Vista-68299.shtml
________
Free drupal themes (http://themesfree.org)