Thread: Don't buy windows 7 yet.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I started with Fedora 5 a couple of years ago. I have a friend who is a sys ad and very familiar with Unix based systems of the past 25 years and he has made it possible. I am not sure that I could swing it on my own although I am a lot more savvy than I was. I would really like to master the command line but it is like learning another language. Getting there slowly but surely.

this is very similar to the situation that i was in about 6 months ago before i went back to XP. i could do most things and really liked how it worked but the command line was just foreign to me as i didn't use it enough. XP has its downsides for sure but it is working for me, plus i go between my home laptop and my work computer and my work computer can't use linux as it is also my cash register. for now it is easier this way, but i am seriously thinking of going back

*note* the whole time i used Ubuntu i could not for the life of me get my S-video to work with my TV which sucked as i use it a lot. it was a big factor in my decision to switch back.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

Alright, I'll take the bait. After all, this discussion on linux has turned out to be more interesting than my original point about the dangers of being an early adopter of a new OS anyway.


Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Valid argument.

But there's two sides to every argument. How much time, in the course of a year does the average windows user spend dealing with viruses, bad windows updates from MS, incompatible drivers, working to protect their home network; and here's the big one - how much time to they spend, in aggregate, a few seconds at a time, waiting on a system that takes longer to boot, takes longer to access files because of an inferior file system, takes longer to launch applications because of all the various things that must be run resident like anti-virus and anti-spyware software?

Also, while it can take longer to get certain applications running on linux (windows games and the like) it's MUCH faster to install the system and MUCH faster to install a linux app. I can got from a system with any other OS installed, or an unformatted harddrive, to a fully opperational Ubuntu system with all the hardware configured, and a full suit of basic applications in 30-45 minutes depending on the system. How long does it take to you to do a full windows install, download all updates, configure all hardware, and get all of your multi-media and office software installed?

Don't get me wrong, I stick by the mantra I've used this whole discussion. Linux is not for everyone. I know it, and I believe it. There ARE certain games that either will not work at all, or require a huge ammount of effort to set up, but those games are not typical these days. If playing one of them is important to you, it would not be reasonable to try to use linux.





On a side note, I had a thought on the way to work today, and I realized something about converting people to linux.

Over the years, I've helped a number of people convert to linux. Some have stayed with it, some have not.

What I've noticed, is that the people who seem to have the least trouble with converting to linux are the truly computer illiterate. The folks without a clue tend to have very little trouble, if any. The folks who seem to have endless problems are windows power-users.

That's because the people without a clue use their machine for the Internet and the occasional letter, things that even Windows 95 accomplishes well.

You're comparing apples to oranges though. From what I can tell, you're a power user and are well versed with Linux. The average computer user is about as computer literate as my grandmother and would have a hell of a time getting a Linux system completely running. I consider myself pretty computer literate, but if someone told me that I've got 30 minutes to get a user friendly computer setup, Linux would be number 3 behind mac and windows. The fact of the matter is, when the user inevitably screws something up, whether it's by always using root or just being dumb otherwise, they need their dummy disc and a forum of friendly people that can help them. Instead, they get to mess with command lines and geeks asking them what distro they've got (and they haven't a clue).

I think Linux is great, really. I just think it needs to get unified and more user friendly rather than programmer friendly.

You're more or less dead on with all of your comments in that post. I am a power user (I built custom computers for pocket money in college, including automated check-in systems for two gyms) and I am extremely well versed in linux.

The one spot I disagree with you, is about which system is faster to set up. Mac is certainly easy, I've watched my girlfriend do it, but it's not the fastest.

Windows is actually quite difficult by comparison. For the record, I've yet to install W7 and I've only done two vista installs, but I've done FAR more windows installs that linux installs over the years.

Ubuntu linux however, has the friendliest and easiest system set up I've ever encountered. I have handed the disk to the most computer illiterate of people, and watched them set up their system.

You put the disk in and reboot (just like windows) and you ignore all of the prompts until it asks you what language you speak.

Then you continue to ignore all of the prompts until you are presented with a fully functional linux desktop running live from the CD.

There's a big friendly icon on the desktop that says "install"

You just double click that and stick to all of the defaults, and a very short time later you will be prompted to restart your computer. The only thing you have to select manually is a user name and password. While it's installing you can browse the internet, play little games, etc.

When it reboots, a full system with all of the basic software is ready and waiting for you. Friendly little bubbles will pop out of the system tray to let you know that you need better video drivers, and offer to go get them for you. Likewise, you're automatically notified of important updates.

Assuming a reasonably current computer, and a good internet connection, the total time to do all of this is usually right around half an hour, maybe 45 mintues.

There's no need to go to the command line for any of it. In fact, with most modern linux distributions, there's never any reason for anybody to use the terminal other than a power user who wants to.

The reason that most of the advice people give is using the terminal, is that using the terminal is simpler if you know what you're doing. For example, if you wanted to know how to install manslide on your system, and I was going to explain how, I would have two options.

A. Go through a lengthy explanation of how what menus to go through and what buttons to click and explain it in the "windows" way of doing thing where you are 100% dependent on your mouse. Although, it's still easier than windows because it's all available through software repositories that are right there. You don't have to go searching for things.

or

B. Copy and past this into a terminal and press enter, then enter your password if it asks for it.

Code:

sudo apt-get install manslide

It's just simpler to explain with B.



As far as this:

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I think Linux is great, really. I just think it needs to get unified and more user friendly rather than programmer friendly.

That's why I'm such a big fan of Ubuntu. Until just a few years ago, there were so many distributions that it was tough to get help. However, ubuntu has come to dominate the home linux market so well, that it really IS becoming unified, and more user friendly. Like I said, there is never a need to use the command line under normal circumstances anymore.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Last month I spent 2 entire weekends trying to get UT3 to run under Wine on Ubuntu. couldn't get it to work, so I gave up.

Excellent point. Same here. Double clicked on a linux kernel in Windows, and it just wouldn't do anything. Can you believe the chutzpah of those people in Redmond, selling software that will not run software written for another operating system!

Originally Posted by jockeys

After Windows was reinstalled (XPsp3) I double clicked the UT3 installer, ran it, and the game opened right up. That easy. Given what my time is worth (and it's not much) it's actually cheaper for me to buy Windows. (although I don't have to pay anything due to the MSDN subscription)

Equally excellent point. I did a quick calculus back when my time was still more or less worthless (i.e. in 1994), and decided that Windows was the worst deal available. On the up side, Linux (and the BSDs, and Mac OSX) have got even better since then. But to each their own.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Valid argument.

But there's two sides to every argument. How much time, in the course of a year does the average windows user spend dealing with viruses, bad windows updates from MS, incompatible drivers, working to protect their home network; and here's the big one - how much time to they spend, in aggregate, a few seconds at a time, waiting on a system that takes longer to boot, takes longer to access files because of an inferior file system, takes longer to launch applications because of all the various things that must be run resident like anti-virus and anti-spyware software?

Also, while it can take longer to get certain applications running on linux (windows games and the like) it's MUCH faster to install the system and MUCH faster to install a linux app. I can got from a system with any other OS installed, or an unformatted harddrive, to a fully opperational Ubuntu system with all the hardware configured, and a full suit of basic applications in 30-45 minutes depending on the system. How long does it take to you to do a full windows install, download all updates, configure all hardware, and get all of your multi-media and office software installed?

fair enough, and some valid points. since i DID try linux just a couple of months ago, I actually decided to do some apples-to-apples comparisons. I made a big spreadsheet, I'll post some relevant data here. notes: the same hardware was used in both cases.

Windows XP Pro SP3 vs. Ubuntu Hardy Heron

preparation
for both I downloaded the latest cd image from msdn and the ubuntu site, respectively. by having the latest builds from both canonical and microsoft, i didn't have to install a bunch of updates right away.
advantage - ubuntu. ubuntu was 7mb smaller, so it downloaded and burned to a cd 43 seconds faster.

instalation and main user configuration
ran the installers with the options set as similarly as i could. ubuntu did not recognize my motherboard's raid controller and so i had to find another hard drive to install it on. (this drive was same speed and manufacturer as the pair of raid'd drives windows got installed on. drives run in raid1, so no real speed advantage for windows)
advantage - windows. ubuntu took 43 minutes to install and configure the main user. windows took 28. add the 7 minutes it took to install avg on windows, and it's still faster.

dealing with drivers
windows was able to see my video card (standard nvidia 8800gt) and my soundcard (bog standard SoundBlaster) out of the box. both of them came with driver cds, so I installed both of them, which took 14 minutes including 1 reboot. updates to both of these drivers are handled by Microsoft Update, so i'll never have to manually install them. ubuntu saw my video card and told me i would have to install proprietary drivers to take full advantage of my card would i like to continue. i clicked yes, drivers installed in about 6 minutes including a reboot, and then my screen becomes all wonky and unusable. (resolution changes without me telling it to, drivers will only drive the monitor at 30hz) repeated attempts to fix this by looking at FAQs and the like lead to me uninstalling the proprietary driver because evidently it's buggy. total time lost so I could wind up where I started: 2 hours 14 minutes. ubuntu also didn't recognize my bog standard sound blaster and even after several hours of looking at forums and trying to figure out what was wrong with alsa I gave up and went without sound. I WAS PREPARED TO END THE TEST HERE, BUT CONTINUED ON OUT OF PURE STUBBORNESS.
advantage - windows, in every possible way. faster and less trouble.

booting
to measure boot time, I included not only power on to login screen time, but typing in password (same password for both installs) and time to desktop with no hard drive activity. windows loads a lot of assemblies AFTER login and I didn't want to give it a unfair advantage.
advantage - surprisingly, windows. I had heard linux booted fast but I wasn't so lucky for some reason. power on to desktop with no hdd activity for windows was 1 minute 15 seconds. ubuntu took 2 minute 53 seconds!

mail and internet
I use firefox in windows, so that stayed the same. i use outlook 2007 in windows, so in ubuntu i used thunderbird, which is a pretty decent piece of 'ware although it doesn't work right with an exchange server and won't do meeting requests. however, in both cases, the stuff was pre-installed in ubuntu.
advantage - tied. ubuntu had these apps preinstalled which is nice (who doesn't need an email client and a non-IE browser?) but their mail client doesn't measure up to outlook.

office and other apps
I use gimp in windows, so that stayed the same. I use office 2007 in windows, and whatever the latest stable version of OpenOffice.org came installed with ubuntu. while I am familiar with OOO and can use it, I would describe it as barely adequate... some of the stuff I can do with Office 2007 can't be done in OOO. otoh, Office 2007 has some truly horrific bloat... it's a 4gb install.
advantage - tied again. OOO is preinstalled on ubuntu but is nowhere as useful as Office 2007. Office 2007 takes almost an hour to install (54 minutes) and is hugely bloated. updates are handled automatically for both systems.

development
I am a software engineer/weapons engineer by trade and so a lot of my job is writing code. I mostly use C#.Net (flame away, I know it's coming) although some of the drivers for hardware I write are written in C, C++ or assembly. Mono is so incomplete, it's pretty much useless (maybe they'll finish someday?) although you can find some very decent tools for working with assembly on ubuntu... I was pleasantly surprised. however, there is no ubuntu equivalent to Visual Studio, so points off for that. MySQL on ubuntu runs very quickly and has reasonably good tools for working with it, but they are not as complete or powerful as MSSQL2005 (haven't migrated to 2008 yet) and SQL Management Studio. They also don't take up 5gb of my drive (including documentation) and cost thousands of dollars.
advantage - windows, but not by a huge margin. if there was any kind of halfway decent IDE for ubuntu, I would have judged it a tie, but I wasn't able to find one. (yes, I tried Eclipse, but it's terrible)

maintenance
system updates, app updates and the like. Microsoft Update (not windows update) updates all my microsoft apps; office, visual studio, mssql server, etc. it also updates my drivers. ubuntu's updater updates EVERYTHING that's installed. avg updates itself, but isn't even needed on ubuntu
advantage - ubuntu. although i don't spend any extra time keeping windows up to date (it does it all automatically) i found the ubuntu updated to be very well written and it genuinely impressed me, so the advantage goes to ubuntu if for style points alone.

file operations
during my comparison I did some extensive tests for moving files, burning cds, all that kind of thing. I won't post all the results here (it's like 10 pages of data) but I will say that there was less than a 1% difference in aggregate time between systems. I used ReiserFS for my ubuntu system and user partitions.
advantage - tied.

gaming
as previously mentioned I could not get UT3 to work AT ALL under Wine, although I was able to get Warcraft3 (a 7 year old game) to work just fine (albeit without sound and at a lower resolution due to lack of video drivers). those are basically the only two games I play.
advantage - windows by a mile.

conclusions -
there are good and bad things about linux. (well, ubuntu anyhow) I was very impressed by the completeness of the ubuntu install, although I wasn't crazy about the lack of sound drivers (let's be honest... that's a dealbreaker on it's own) and lack of a good IDE. you have to install a bunch of extra stuff with windows, and that takes a few hours (Visual Studio, in particular takes a VERY long time to install) although I spent those same few hours in ubuntu trying to make things work that should have worked on their own. (sound card, video card) daily operation is not at all faster in linux despite what i'd heard; it's very slow to boot up and in most cases applications do not load appreciably faster. it also takes WAY LONGER to shut down than windows, but I don't include this because some people leave their computers on all the time.

linux is good for some things... i built a computer for my 7 year old nephew and put ubuntu on it for him to surf the web and play a few games, and he loves it (luckily the soundblaster i put in that computer was automatically recognized. but it was also 9 years old). but for serious, professional work i cannot in any way recommend it. in the end, I'd say ubuntu was worth what I paid for it although windows is still a bargain, time-wise, even at full price.

comments are welcome.

Oh God. I swore never to do this again many years ago. But this comparison so full of errors that I must.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Windows XP Pro SP3 vs. Ubuntu Hardy Heron

Apple, meet orange. Orange, this is apple. To wit, "Windows" is the operating system and a few more or less useful tools. "Ubuntu" is the operating system plus hundreds of programs.

Originally Posted by jockeys

instalation and main user configuration
ran the installers with the options set as similarly as i could. ubuntu did not recognize my motherboard's raid controller and so i had to find another hard drive to install it on. (this drive was same speed and manufacturer as the pair of raid'd drives windows got installed on. drives run in raid1, so no real speed advantage for windows)
advantage - windows. ubuntu took 43 minutes to install and configure the main user. windows took 28. add the 7 minutes it took to install avg on windows, and it's still faster.

Well, would you buy a RAID controller that said "won't work with Windows"? No? Then the incompatibility is meaningless. What's more important is that the default Ubuntu install requires minimum user interaction, runs cleanly, and delivers a system with secure default settings. Case in point, your Windows system, if connected to the net, will be infested with viruses before you have had a chance to install an antivirus (that's what they're called, right? Haven't felt the need to use one on Unix for apparent reasons.).

Originally Posted by jockeys

dealing with drivers
[massive problems with Linux]I WAS PREPARED TO END THE TEST HERE, BUT CONTINUED ON OUT OF PURE STUBBORNESS.
advantage - windows, in every possible way. faster and less trouble.

Same argument: You bought a card that was optimised for Windows and whose specs are not documented, so free programmers cannot produce decent drivers. It happens. Just don't get me started about hardware that was advertised as running with Windows, and then not doing. Or hardware that ended as a doorstopper because a Windows upgrade made the original drivers unusable. I'm not saying your problems aren't real. But I've installed Linux on about 50 machines in the last twelve months (mostly Ubuntu out of sheer laziness), and only two gave me that level of problems (one being my home desktop, who wouldn't play nicely with some esoteric xinerama stuff, don't ask).

Originally Posted by jockeys

booting
to measure boot time, I included not only power on to login screen time, but typing in password (same password for both installs) and time to desktop with no hard drive activity. windows loads a lot of assemblies AFTER login and I didn't want to give it a unfair advantage.
advantage - surprisingly, windows. I had heard linux booted fast but I wasn't so lucky for some reason. power on to desktop with no hdd activity for windows was 1 minute 15 seconds. ubuntu took 2 minute 53 seconds!

You either chose to run a lot of services, or your network connection is flaky. My machine gives me a graphical login prompt after approx. 20 seconds (including several services, e.g. qmail, apache, and mysql (yes, I'm using daemontools)).

Originally Posted by jockeys

mail and internet
I use firefox in windows, so that stayed the same. i use outlook 2007 in windows, so in ubuntu i used thunderbird,

The equivalent to Outlook is Evolution, also installed and available via Applications, Office.

Originally Posted by jockeys

which is a pretty decent piece of 'ware although it doesn't work right with an exchange server and won't do meeting requests. however, in both cases, the stuff was pre-installed in ubuntu.
advantage - tied. ubuntu had these apps preinstalled which is nice (who doesn't need an email client and a non-IE browser?) but their mail client doesn't measure up to outlook.

Apples and oranges, again. By the way, Evolution will play nicely with Exchange.

Originally Posted by jockeys

office and other apps
I use gimp in windows, so that stayed the same. I use office 2007 in windows, and whatever the latest stable version of OpenOffice.org came installed with ubuntu. while I am familiar with OOO and can use it, I would describe it as barely adequate... some of the stuff I can do with Office 2007 can't be done in OOO. otoh, Office 2007 has some truly horrific bloat... it's a 4gb install.
advantage - tied again. OOO is preinstalled on ubuntu but is nowhere as useful as Office 2007. Office 2007 takes almost an hour to install (54 minutes) and is hugely bloated. updates are handled automatically for both systems.

I'd be most interested to learn what things you cannot do with OOO that you can do with Office. Mind you, I can easily show you stuff I can do with OOO, but not Office. And yes, I miss Visio and Project under Linux, too.

Originally Posted by jockeys

development
[valid poins]
advantage - windows, but not by a huge margin. if there was any kind of halfway decent IDE for ubuntu, I would have judged it a tie, but I wasn't able to find one. (yes, I tried Eclipse, but it's terrible)

Emacs, of course. *cough*

Linux.com :: Features »The old slam that "Linux has no good development tools" is no longer true. KDevelop is a rock-solid, feature-rich development system with only few non-trivial flaws. With its overall ease of use and integration with the system and other applications, KDevelop lands a series of tough blows against Visual Studio. Code completion and IDE-documentation are subjects in which Visual Studio is still a ways ahead. «

In any event, you may find sites like Alternatives to Windows, Mac, Linux and online applications | AlternativeTo.net useful.

Originally Posted by jockeys

maintenance
system updates, app updates and the like. Microsoft Update (not windows update) updates all my microsoft apps; office, visual studio, mssql server, etc. it also updates my drivers. ubuntu's updater updates EVERYTHING that's installed. avg updates itself, but isn't even needed on ubuntu
advantage - ubuntu. although i don't spend any extra time keeping windows up to date (it does it all automatically) i found the ubuntu updated to be very well written and it genuinely impressed me, so the advantage goes to ubuntu if for style points alone.

Add to that the fact that bugs are fixed more quickly, and sprinkle some magic auto-apt over your machine, and you'll never want to maintain Windows ever.

Originally Posted by jockeys

file operations
during my comparison I did some extensive tests for moving files, burning cds, all that kind of thing. I won't post all the results here (it's like 10 pages of data) but I will say that there was less than a 1% difference in aggregate time between systems. I used ReiserFS for my ubuntu system and user partitions.
advantage - tied.

Ah. File systems. Highly dependent on what you are trying to achieve. Linux filesystems (of which there are many) can make a vast performance difference, especially on servers. I seriously doubt that this comparison is meaningful for user machines that are idle 99% of the time, anyhow.

On a tangent, ReiserFS is never my first choice.

Originally Posted by jockeys

gaming
as previously mentioned I could not get UT3 to work AT ALL under Wine, although I was able to get Warcraft3 (a 7 year old game) to work just fine (albeit without sound and at a lower resolution due to lack of video drivers). those are basically the only two games I play.
advantage - windows by a mile.

Absolutely. Gaming is where Windows really shines. Gaming, and Excel. Unfortunately, that's about it, then.

Originally Posted by jockeys

conclusions -
there are good and bad things about linux. (well, ubuntu anyhow) I was very impressed by the completeness of the ubuntu install, although I wasn't crazy about the lack of sound drivers (let's be honest... that's a dealbreaker on it's own) and lack of a good IDE. you have to install a bunch of extra stuff with windows, and that takes a few hours (Visual Studio, in particular takes a VERY long time to install) although I spent those same few hours in ubuntu trying to make things work that should have worked on their own. (sound card, video card) daily operation is not at all faster in linux despite what i'd heard; it's very slow to boot up and in most cases applications do not load appreciably faster. it also takes WAY LONGER to shut down than windows, but I don't include this because some people leave their computers on all the time.

1. Your start up and shut down problems are most likely network related. My machines take less than a minute for both. And let's not go into hibernation issues with Windows.
2. Your sound card should work. If it doesn't, it's not standard, or broken. May be hard to believe, but. I'd like to see the detailled error messages, though. The last 10 laptops on which I installed, didn't give me any errors, and that's telling you something, as laptop hardware is notoriously flaky.
3. Applications can be made to load a lot faster, but that's an advanced exercise from the don't-try-this-at-home-dept.
4. My wife thinks Gnome is the most intuitive and logical UI ever. I tend to agree. At least you don't have to press start to stop the machine...

Originally Posted by jockeys

linux is good for some things... i built a computer for my 7 year old nephew and put ubuntu on it for him to surf the web and play a few games, and he loves it (luckily the soundblaster i put in that computer was automatically recognized. but it was also 9 years old). but for serious, professional work i cannot in any way recommend it. in the end, I'd say ubuntu was worth what I paid for it although windows is still a bargain, time-wise, even at full price.

Horses for courses. I would claim that my productivity under Linux is 20% higher than under Windows, but then again, I pretty much know what I'm doing, and am able to make Linux do what I want. Well, this one is unfortunately in German, but it's one of Germany's leading daily papers telling the opposite story of yours. It happens.

Originally Posted by jockeys

comments are welcome.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the tests. Sorry that your hardware didn't work.

reading all this stuff i seriously want to switch my laptop back to Linux now, but there are 2 things that would stop me:
1. can i run Simply Accounting in it? i read some forum post elsewhere where some dude said he used wine and wineTricks and changed one setting and it worked fine, if it doesn't work then i would have to make like a 10gig partition for windows XP pro and just run it in there when i need it.
2. will the s-video to my TV work? it didn't before and was a big reason i switched back to XP. now i didn't have my LCD then which does have a monitor in port, so that might work instead, but i don't really know.

my laptop is a Dell Inspiron 6400 that i bought about 4 years ago and enough computer for me, as i am not a gamer.

i know this isn't a computer forum but you guys really seem to know your stuff, so any suggestions would be great.

also i would really like to convert my work comp/cash register to linux but wouldn't it be hard to get my Point Of Sale program working? find the drivers for the reciept printer?

thanks
Wes

Wow, this is hilarious. Can we just live with the fact that Windows users are going to skew things to show their point, and that Linux users will do the same?

As soon as you put a Windows computer on the Internet it will be infected with viruses? Seriously? As soon as you install Linux you'll gain 80 pounds, have oily skin, and will go back to using disposable razors. Isn't it fun to wildly exaggerate?

OOO vs. MS Office is a joke. OOO is decent. GIMP is decent. They're both terribly inadequate when compared to MSO and Photoshop. Examples? I can't count how many times I've opened an MS document in Open Office and had the formatting all borked. Last I checked, Evolution did not work well with Exchange 2007. Even with previous versions of Exchange, Evolution was lagged. I'd love to see an administrator try to switch corporate users from Outlook to Evolution.

We can go on and on. I use BSD on occasion but Windows otherwise. I support a corporate environment. Linux is great for our web server and ERP server, but that's the only value I see. I don't like the GPL, I don't like the non-standard distribution, and I can't help but laugh at the Fisher Price naming scheme of Ubuntu. They should just call it "Baby's First Operating System".

I must admit that it is fun to debate this stuff on a shaving forum, though.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Apple, meet orange. Orange, this is apple. To wit, "Windows" is the operating system and a few more or less useful tools. "Ubuntu" is the operating system plus hundreds of programs.

perhaps. but i'm making a usage comparison here. using windows vs. using ubuntu. i'm not trying to benchmark the kernels or anything, i'm just trying to compare the experience. i prolly should have made that more clear.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Well, would you buy a RAID controller that said "won't work with Windows"? No? Then the incompatibility is meaningless.

I just bought a motherboard. it wasn't advertised as being specially compatible with any particular operating system. i just bought something off the shelf at fry's that had the specs i needed. the very fact that i would have to specifically shop for something that would work with linux is a mark against linux in my mind. shopping for hardware is enough of a chore as it is, i don't need an OS that makes it more difficult.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Same argument: You bought a card that was optimised for Windows and whose specs are not documented, so free programmers cannot produce decent drivers. It happens.

no, i bought the cheapest card fry's had. it wasn't advertised as being optimised for anything. see above remarks.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

You either chose to run a lot of services, or your network connection is flaky. My machine gives me a graphical login prompt after approx. 20 seconds (including several services, e.g. qmail, apache, and mysql (yes, I'm using daemontools)).

didn't choose to run anything, that was the default install. i didn't install any software on the ubuntu installation, i just tested it with the default apps. no optimizing, no extras installed, and that's how it ran for me. i've never had any network problems, i just have my home internet connection, which isn't going to change because there's only one isp where i live. if there WAS a network issue, i don't think it should affect booting. windows boots just as fast when there's limited/no network.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

The equivalent to Outlook is Evolution, also installed and available via Applications, Office.
Apples and oranges, again. By the way, Evolution will play nicely with Exchange.

thanks, i didn't know that, if i ever try linux again, i'll look into it.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I'd be most interested to learn what things you cannot do with OOO that you can do with Office. Mind you, I can easily show you stuff I can do with OOO, but not Office. And yes, I miss Visio and Project under Linux, too.

i was referring mostly to project, which i use every day. also, excel 2007 can do a lot more stuff (like dynamically integrating a sql table into a spreadsheet).

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Emacs, of course. *cough*

Linux.com :: Features »The old slam that "Linux has no good development tools" is no longer true. KDevelop is a rock-solid, feature-rich development system with only few non-trivial flaws. With its overall ease of use and integration with the system and other applications, KDevelop lands a series of tough blows against Visual Studio. Code completion and IDE-documentation are subjects in which Visual Studio is still a ways ahead. «

In any event, you may find sites like Alternatives to Windows, Mac, Linux and online applications | AlternativeTo.net useful.

cool, i'll look into kdevelop next time. until it can talk to a TFS machine it's still not as good in my book I doubt kdevelop has integration and collaboration tools that can compare to TFS.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Add to that the fact that bugs are fixed more quickly, and sprinkle some magic auto-apt over your machine, and you'll never want to maintain Windows ever.

maybe, but I doubt it. I don't have to maintain Windows as it is. avg updates itself, firefox updates itself, and MSupdate takes care of every other app I use. so, zero manual maintenance. the only reason I gave ubuntu the edge there is that I thought synaptic was very slickly written.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I seriously doubt that this comparison is meaningful for user machines that are idle 99% of the time, anyhow.

agreed, but the comparison didn't feel complete without it so I ran some benchmarks.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Absolutely. Gaming is where Windows really shines. Gaming, and Excel. Unfortunately, that's about it, then.

collaborative development. large software project planning and management. (which is what I do for a living) admittedly, most home users couldn't care less about these things, but I did the review for some developer friends of mine, so that's the perspective it comes from.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

1. Your start up and shut down problems are most likely network related. My machines take less than a minute for both. And let's not go into hibernation issues with Windows.
2. Your sound card should work. If it doesn't, it's not standard, or broken. May be hard to believe, but. I'd like to see the detailled error messages, though. The last 10 laptops on which I installed, didn't give me any errors, and that's telling you something, as laptop hardware is notoriously flaky.
3. Applications can be made to load a lot faster, but that's an advanced exercise from the don't-try-this-at-home-dept.
4. My wife thinks Gnome is the most intuitive and logical UI ever. I tend to agree. At least you don't have to press start to stop the machine...

1. it's totally possible. but i'm not impressed by an os that can't gracefully handle things like that.
2. shoulda coulda woulda. it DIDN'T work, out of the box with no fiddling. it did with windows. my time has a non-zero value, and having to fight with trivial stuff like this is why I decided linux was a bad investment for my software team.
3. I believe you, and from my days running xwindows on top of darwin, I'm highly appreciative of how much optimizing you can do.
4. actually, the folks at apple take the prize here as far as I'm concerned. windows is butt ugly, no arguments here.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Horses for courses. I would claim that my productivity under Linux is 20% higher than under Windows, but then again, I pretty much know what I'm doing, and am able to make Linux do what I want. Well, this one is unfortunately in German, but it's one of Germany's leading daily papers telling the opposite story of yours. It happens.

you're right of course, it depends entirely on what you are doing. as long as you're not playing high-horsepower games or doing collaborative programming and team management, I think linux is a fine os as long as it supports all your hardware, which has been a real crapshoot for me so far. (this wasn't the first such test i've done. i do it every three or four years to see if linux is a viable upgrade path. so far it's failed the test pretty miserably all three times. first time was using yellowdog linux on powermacs, the second time using redhat on commodity hardware, this third time using ubuntu on commodity hardware)

thanks for your replies, they're very well thought out.