Tips on moving to Linux?

[Kremlar]

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.

[Kremlar]

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!

[Kremlar]

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?

[Kremlar]

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.

[Kremlar]

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?

[Kremlar]

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.

 
 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.

[Kremlar]

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.

 
 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

[Kremlar]

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.  

[Kremlar]

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.