Tips on moving to Linux?

[Thorham]

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:

[Nobrainer]

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.

[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.

[Thorham]

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.

[commodorejohn]

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!

[CritAnime]

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.

[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!

[commodorejohn]

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.

[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?

[TeamBlackFox]

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.

[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.

[gertsy]

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.

[Duce]

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.

[psxphill]

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).

[commodorejohn]

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.

[Madshib]

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.