Thinking of switching from XP to Linux...should I?

[disturbed1]

I had a Windows 2000 file server up for 9 months with no reboots or crashes. Of course all it did was sit there with the power turned on My girlfriend that still uses Windows XP as her default OS averages a reboot about once a week. This is a forced reboot usually caused from a crash, or from some update that gets installed. The crashes are program level, not OS. My 3 Linux machines (2 Debian, 1 Ubuntu) are only rebooted if I install a new kernel or kernel driver, which is almost never. Not that I don't have crashes in Linux, I do. It isn't the OS itself, it's a program here or there. Which is a big difference I notice between Windows and Linux. Windows XP was a huge improvement over previous versions where if most programs crash the OS will still keep running. Any time there's an OS problem (blue screens, slow running) it is 99% user error. 5,000 different programs installed which 80% are warez, 10% alpha beta, 5% crap.

I'm not a Windows basher, I actually think Windows XP is a great OS. But if you're having issues operating Windows, I can guarantee 100% you'll hate Linux. If a person is unable to grasp basic computing skills to master Windows, they will be lost in Linux. I don't use Linux because it's better, it's because the features and programs Linux offers that Windows doesn't. Security is not an issue with either OS, if you know how to set up Windows properly. A correctly maintained Windows install will be no better/worse than a properly maintained Linux system.



If an idiot is given the best tools in the world he will still fail

[Steve Stepoway]

The crashes are program level, not OS.

This is the nonsense that people believe because of their experience with Windows. There is absolutely no reason, in a properly written OS, that an application crash should cause the OS to crash or hang. No reason. None. The fact that an app crashing would cause the system to crash/hang is testament to the poor quality of the OS.

Steve

[mats.hogberg]

All in all, the lack of applications, at least the ones we've becomed used to under Windows, makes the transition hard.
OK, there are alternatives for most, but then you have to have courage enough to compile from source code and other arcane activities hardly a percent of a percent of Windows users ever come close to. Many alternative apps even lack GUI. (And many Windows users seem very afraid of using CLI apps.) I'd say it's hard for a "spoiled" average Windows user, who want to do more than the regular office/Internet tasks to do a clean switch.

/Mats

[JohnnyMalaria]

The crashes are program level, not OS.

This is the nonsense that people believe because of their experience with Windows. There is absolutely no reason, in a properly written OS, that an application crash should cause the OS to crash or hang. No reason. None. The fact that an app crashing would cause the system to crash/hang is testament to the poor quality of the OS.

Steve

If an exception is occurring in a user-mode app on an NT kernel-based OS, the OS won't crash.

An application can't generate a BSOD on an NT kernel-based OS.

A driver that is used by an application can.

If you are getting BSODs on an NT-based Windows, then it is because of a hardware fault or badly written kernel-mode drivers.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. Probably because, up until XP, Windows came in a kernel-based form (NT) and a non-kernel form (the consumer versions such as 3.1, 95, 98, ME etc). On consumer versions, an exception in an application can crash the whole system.

The very same arguments apply to current Mac OS (kernel-based) and earlier versions.

[JohnnyMalaria]

While the topic of the thread is not Windows versus linux.

You made the claim that Windows servers can't stay up for long periods.

http://en.uptime-project.net/page.php?page=toplist&content=windows

[Seeker47]

Ubuntu also has a LiveCD that can be used to test and (if desired) install the OS. IMHO, Ubuntu is probably the most user-friendly Linux distro I've used thus far, and there is lots of online documentation about how to do things in it that might not be intuitive to long-time Windows users.

That would be a major advantage. After it was praised in a similar thread here, I gave ELive a try. Finding things was hard, doing anything useful even harder. Kind of like stumbling around in the dark without a flashlight. And I've been using computers and OSes (other than Linux / Unix) for a rather long time. Some good guides, like those often seen on VH for video stuff, would make a big difference. Any suggested links ?

[lordsmurf]

Software, hardware and drivers are the reason you need to reboot. Nothing is perfect, and even the best combinations of hardware have issues.

If you're only using the base OS and built-in OS server tools, using the minimum-needed recommended hardware, of course it won't need a frequent reboot. The OS alone is fine. Windows, Linux, etc

But start installing hardware, software, etc .... as I said .... either (A) reboot or (B) just sit there and be a dumbass that calls IT or tech support.

The original poster is talking about workstations, not servers.

[lordsmurf]

How about there aditude, the control everything aditude. I've spent a great deal of time learning how to configure XP to do what I want, and to find the hardware (and software) to do what I want. I'm 90% there and now I have to do it all over again? I remember clearly the change from 98 to XP. MS blaming Dell, Dell blaming the software companys, the software companys blaming MS. I just don't like there, you comply with us or else, aditude. Though I was thinking I would try a Mac instead of Linux. It just sounds too hard.
Thanks Mike

Microsoft has no attitude. A company is not a living thing.

If you think Windows takes time, Linux will take at least 10x as much time to configure, and you'd better be pretty savvy on computers. I don't mean point-and-click, but actual command-line skills and deeper knowledge into how computers actually work.

Dell and MS (Apple and Matrox, Linux and PowerDVD, Sun and whoever, etc) .... you get companies blaming each other on all platforms, and even in industries beyond computers. Switching OS might change the exact problem, but there will be others, no doubt. I've seen many of them, still do to this day.

[tekkieman]

If you think Windows takes time, Linux will take at least 10x as much time to configure, and you'd better be pretty savvy on computers. I don't mean point-and-click, but actual command-line skills and deeper knowledge into how computers actually work.

I'm sorry smurf, but that is just an outright lie! The last linux distro I installed (and in a virtual environment, no less) took 8 minutes. From the click of the "Install me" button (yes, button in a GUI), all I had to do was answer which drive to install it on (there was only one choice being a virtual drive), and it installed the OS, a couple hundred apps, audio, video, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Finally, I had to enter what I wanted for the root password, as well as my username and password, and I had a full system, appps and all.

Notice that nowhere in there did you find the words "configure", "command line", "compile", or any other such nonsense people keep spewing. Want to me to capture a video of it to send you?

[lordsmurf]

tekkieman, you're familiar with Linux and you're not the average user.

When you're the typical Best Buy cheap-ass shopper, getting the off-brand Dynex audio cards and whatnot, or the proprietary Dell crap network cards, Linux pukes itself on the plug-and-play. To get the hardware to work, you'll have to screw around with the kernel and drivers.

Or reverse that. When you're using more obscure high-end hardware, you'll find yourself in the same situation. I remember one Linux distro barfed itself a year or two ago because my RDRAM confused it (I'm not using DDR!).

I find Linux installs are half-ass more than not, so you have to go in and manually set it up 100% as needed.

I'm not saying Windows is any easier, but Linux is certainly more time-consuming, especially to those unfamiliar with how it (or computers in general) truly work.

[FulciLives]

I tried a LiveCD once of Linux ... I think it was ELive or something ... it worked (knock on wood).

By saying "it worked" I mean I was able to use the LiveCD and I even made a partition on a 2nd HDD to install it. The graphics worked with my Nvidia card, the sound worked, I was able to get on-line with my Comcast cable internet connection. The web browser worked. The IRC chat program worked. It even came with a cool TRON like car game (where you leave a "trail" and try to box in the other car on a grid).

Only problem?

I had no idea what I was doing. The first big issue was that I couldn't access my other Windows NTFS partitions. So much for accessing my files. I went to IRC and talked to a bunch of people on some Linux channel ... one was very helpful and despite all the command line bullshit he told me to type in ... I still couldn't access my C: HDD.

I gave up very quickly but not after first wasting hours and hours on it. Still never could gain NTFS access to the C: HDD although I was able to access the NTFS partition on my 2nd HDD. Go figure.

Anyways ... Linux might be OK for those that just want to access the internet and do "simple" things but for us video hobby people I saw a huge lack of software that we would want/need to use. I could maybe see using a Linux computer as a HTPC if all you wanted was playback of videos via your TV via your TV OUT (on the video card) but for creating video files and whatnot ... forget it.

It is so user un-friendly that I can't see wasting my time on it. For me it was an interesting experiment but nothing more.

I should add that I did give the Ubuntu LiveCD a try and it worked again but I read that there was a ton of "rigamaroll" that you had to go through to get proper "full" Nvidia graphic support and I read thread after thread of garbage about this. I don't need such driver headaches. It's hard enough doing what you need to do little alone worry about f'ing drivers not working. Insanity!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Trident5]

Myself i have also thought about trying linux i like to learn new things on computer. And dont mind a challenge however rather than dual booting id suggest just getting another drive.. Hard drives these days are quite cheap... And mabe you linux gurus well know if you can boot from a usb hard drive you can just pick up an external usb drive also very cheap... That way no mess no fuss no fiddling with taking your comp apart.... when you want to go to other os you have to go to system bios and change boot up from one drive to another an extra step but if ya decide ya dont like Linux.. its alot easier to nuke a completly different drive and well who cant use an extra 100 gigs of space

[CubDukat]

You might want to take a look at the upcoming Ubuntu Studio distro. From what I can see, it seems far better suited for content creation than plain Ubuntu.

I'm looking at eventually migrating my video setup away from XP and/or Vista over to Ubuntu Studio. While it's true that Linux as a whole is quite a bit more hands-on than XP ever was and hardware support is somewhat less than what it is for Windows, it's arguable that it's way more bulletproof and efficient.

I'll still keep XP/Vista as my primary OS, but eventually I want to get Ubuntu to the point where it can take over that role. From what I understand, Cinelerra is every bit as capable as Premiere Pro, and if you can overlook the lack of openly available (and legal) codecs like Dolby Digital, it's a good deal.

After all, if ILM can make Linux work, there's no reason a regular Joe can't.

[FulciLives]

After all, if ILM can make Linux work, there's no reason a regular Joe can't.

My analogy to that comment?

"After all, if a skilled and practiced neurosurgeon can perform brain surgery, there's no reason a regular Joe can't."

Ummm ... see my point?

Your comment doesn't make sense! :P

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[mike1061]

Microsoft has no attitude. A company is not a living thing.

If you think Windows takes time, Linux will take at least 10x as much time to configure, and you'd better be pretty savvy on computers. I don't mean point-and-click, but actual command-line skills and deeper knowledge into how computers actually work.

Dell and MS (Apple and Matrox, Linux and PowerDVD, Sun and whoever, etc) .... you get companies blaming each other on all platforms, and even in industries beyond computers. Switching OS might change the exact problem, but there will be others, no doubt. I've seen many of them, still do to this day.

That's why i was thinking of a Mac, it's closer to windows.
I do think I'm above a user, I've built 3 computers from scratch, and people bring me there computer to fix (over 10 times now), though I've been unsucessful sometimes. I also find problems that I still need to call other people.
BUT I'm not ready for a comand line computer, and I'm not familier with kernals, or messing with the regeristry.

I do understand your point about switching OS's and still having problems. I heard you loud and clear. If I do it, it will be a dedicated computer with just the Mac OS, and Mac programs. I will just play/learn on it.
Thanks Mike

[tekkieman]

tekkieman, you're familiar with Linux and you're not the average user.

True, I am familiar with linux. That's why I find it important to offer my opinion in this matter.

When you're the typical Best Buy cheap-ass shopper, getting the off-brand Dynex audio cards and whatnot, or the proprietary Dell crap network cards, Linux pukes itself on the plug-and-play. To get the hardware to work, you'll have to screw around with the kernel and drivers.

You really must have been trying the wrong distros (not that having so many choices makes it easy for someone who wants to "try" linux). Just to pass on my experience with the distros I've tried, I can say that I have never had to load any driver to make any machine work (with one exception noted below).

I have installed Suse, kanotix, FC2, FC3, and Mepis on an Athlon 650, 512M, AGP 2x video, 2x60G HD without loading a single driver or "screwing with the kernel".

I have installed FC2, FC3, kanotix, Ubuntu, dyne::bolic (LiveCD only), and Mepis on a Dell 2350 1.8G, 512M, 60G, 160G, i810 integrated graphics, with a "proprietary Dell crap network card" (which is really a cheap-ass Broadcom card) without loading a single driver or "screwing with the kernel".

I have installed Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Ubuntu Ultimate Edition, and Mepis on a (just built last week) Pentium D 830 (dual-core) 3Gig, 2G RAM, 250G SATA, 200G & 160G PATA, nVidia FX 5200 (PCI) without loading a single driver or "screwing with the kernel".

Now, the laptop was a different story...HP AMD Athlon64 3200+ 2G, 1.2G RAM, 100G HD, ATI X200 Mobility graphics. Ok, here I have never been able to get any ATI driver to load for the video. However, the default VESA driver works just fine. I was unable to get any distro to load with the exception of Mepis (which is my usual distro anyway, and you see why). The only driver I had to load was for my wireless NIC, which also uses a cheap-ass Broadcom chipset. But since the driver I loaded was my Windows driver, it wasn't any more difficult than loading the driver in Windows!

Whether or not I am familiar with linux, or whether or not I am the average user, almost every linux install I have done has not required my to be anything more than "an average" user.

I find Linux installs are half-ass more than not, so you have to go in and manually set it up 100% as needed.

Again, I would suggest that you have been trying the wrong distro. What is "half-assed" about being asked what language your keyboard is <click>, what time zone are you in <click>, what drive do you want to install on <click>, what do you want for a username and password <click>, what do you want for a root password <click>, finish <click>?

I'm not saying Windows is any easier, but Linux is certainly more time-consuming, especially to those unfamiliar with how it (or computers in general) truly work.

I beg to differ, but the proof is in the eyes of the user. For anyone who would like to try a test to see which side the truth leans toward, I propose to anyone running XP with 1G or more of RAM, download VirtualBox (free for personal use, as well as open-source) from here and install it (less resource hungry than VMWare, and far better than Virtual PC), and download the latest Mepis ISO (link in my sig graphic). When you setup the virtual client in VirtualBox, tell the CD/DVD to mount the ISO. This is, in essence, the same thing as booting the LiveCD. Once the desktop is loaded, click the install me icon. Ten minutes later, once the install has finished, when it asks if you want to reboot (just the VM, not the whole computer), select "continue using the LiveCD". The reason is that you need to do a regular shutdown inside the VM so you can unmount the ISO in VirtualBox, or it will just keep restarting the Live CD.

Ok, two concessions on "ease of use". First, when the installer asks where to install grub. Grub should always be installed in the MBR (you'll see that choice is the default). Windows doesn't ask this because Windows believes it should be the only OS on the system, and doesn't care where other OS'es are, or how to boot them. Second, Mepis mounts all your NTFS partitions by default (there you go Fulci), so if you have the 6.5 beta 6 Mepis, please right-click on the drive icons on the desktop and select unmount before doing an install. The reason is that the OS cannot determine the Windows status if that partition is mounted, so when it writes the OS choices to the MBR, it doesn't see Windows as a choice. While this is easily fixed by booting off the Live CD and fixing a text file, it might be used as negative point by the linux haters. After all, you shouldn't have to fix your system by typing in the equivalent of notepad, rather you should have to fix it through registry hacks, provided you can boot the system enough to get to the registry, otherwise, reformat and reinstall.

[mike1061]

tekkieman
Do you know of any tutorials I could check out? What I would be do is put Linux on one computer, and read the tutorials on another.
I do plan on checking out the link posted in about the 3rd comment later.
Thanks Mike

[Nelson37]

My field experience is that absolutely Windows servers need rebooting on a regular basis. Just did one Friday as a major accounting app was running a near-constant 97-99% of CPU, even with nobody logged in. Reboot solved the problem. Have had Windows servers lock up, freeze, and require reboots many times.

For reliability, Novell blew anything else totally out of the water, our record was a server up for 7 years continously, was only brought down for hard drive upgrade. My last Novell in service has been up for 3 years without being touched, and in the last 8 years has only been brought down once to move to a different building and once due to a hurricane. Those were the only two times in the entire 8 years that hands were laid upon that server for any reason.

But that reliability does not matter, just as any advantages held by the Betamax, the steam-powered car, or WordPerfect do not matter. The market chose otherwise. The Novell server above is due to be replaced in a few months as their accounting app no longer supports Novell in the next version. It will be a sad day when I take it down.

Anyone who does not think MS has attitude has not spoken to enough MS techs and salespeople. Very much like Sprint used to be, they are the only game in town and they know it.

I think the fact that an alternative such as Linux exists is great, I hope it gets better. Like good enough for it to actually be commercially viable as an OS, which, outside of specialized situations, it is not.

[jagabo]

I think the fact that an alternative such as Linux exists is great, I hope it gets better.

I don't think anybody would disagree with that. Except Bill Gates!

[tekkieman]

tekkieman
Do you know of any tutorials I could check out? What I would be do is put Linux on one computer, and read the tutorials on another.
I

Mike -

This one is being talked about quite a bit lately. It is viewable online through your browser, or there is an ISO available somewhere for it (I have the ISO on my machine. This is a video tutorial aimed at people who are curious, but don't know where to start. I also thought this site was a good intro, although they appear to be down at the moment (it could just be my DSL due to weather here).

Don't get me wrong here, I am not anti-Windows. I make my living writing software specifically for Windows, and even at home, I spend close to 70% of my time booted into Windows because I do a lot of work at home (consulting). However, when I am booted into Windows, I have linux running in a VM. When I have a choice, I boot linux (with Windows available in a VM). Choice is good. Having it all is great!

[mike1061]

tekkieman
Do you know of any tutorials I could check out? What I would be do is put Linux on one computer, and read the tutorials on another.
I

Mike -

This one is being talked about quite a bit lately. It is viewable online through your browser, or there is an ISO available somewhere for it (I have the ISO on my machine. This is a video tutorial aimed at people who are curious, but don't know where to start. I also thought this site was a good intro, although they appear to be down at the moment (it could just be my DSL due to weather here).

Don't get me wrong here, I am not anti-Windows. I make my living writing software specifically for Windows, and even at home, I spend close to 70% of my time booted into Windows because I do a lot of work at home (consulting). However, when I am booted into Windows, I have linux running in a VM. When I have a choice, I boot linux (with Windows available in a VM). Choice is good. Having it all is great!

Thanks I will check these out.
Mike

[lordsmurf]

My field experience is that absolutely Windows servers need rebooting on a regular basis.

It's probably a configuration error, caused by shoddy admin work. The majority of Windows servers tend to be poorly set up because the users are really not that savvy to them. it's not Windows, it's user error.

The reverse is true for workstations, Linux problems are very often config errors, and user error.

But I'm more understanding for users, and less understanding for admins.

An admin is supposed to be 100% qualified with what they're doing. They are supposed to be highly trained. You need to learn the OS, not just play with it.

A general computer user is not as concerned about making the equipment work, they just need to use it. The OS should not be a chore, it's the means to an end, not the end itself.

[lordsmurf]

I propose to anyone running XP with 1G or more of RAM, download VirtualBox (free for personal use, as well as open-source) from here and install it (less resource hungry than VMWare, and far better than Virtual PC), and download the latest Mepis ISO (link in my sig graphic). When you setup the virtual client in VirtualBox, tell the CD/DVD to mount the ISO. This is, in essence, the same thing as booting the LiveCD. Once the desktop is loaded, click the install me icon. Ten minutes later, once the install has finished, when it asks if you want to reboot (just the VM, not the whole computer), select "continue using the LiveCD". The reason is that you need to do a regular shutdown inside the VM so you can unmount the ISO in VirtualBox, or it will just keep restarting the Live CD.

I'll try this. Thanks.

I've tried Red Hat, Suse, and a bunch of others. I forget which ones, usually the flavor of the month. They mostly just aggravated me. I did it mostly for curiosity, see what existed.

[Nelson37]

Nice try, but no cigar.

Servers properly set up. Software does not work correctly, drivers do not work correctly, the OS is not solid to start with, Service packs are bad and withdrawn, etc., etc.. The number of times I have seen "Microsoft is aware of this problem which exists in the following versions...." runs into some pretty large numbers.

Windows server has improved significantly since the early NT versions, but it has one HELL of a long way to go to match the reliability that Novell has shown.

Just for a numbers demo, at one time the company I worked for had 14 field technicians, almost all with two or more MS and/or Novell certifications. Servers usually set up and tested in house by Master CNE for Novell, and two or more MS-certified techs on the MS side. There is not one of those 14 techs who would have the slightest question which is the more reliable system. This was heavily discussed at regular meetings.

One subject of those meetings was whether we should continue to advocate what we all knew to be a superior system, or stop trying to sell a system most customers had never heard of and give them what they asked for. The market shift to MS support and away from Novell finally decided the issue.

I am trying to recall if we EVER had a Novell crash due to software, and not hardware. Not that I can recall.

But, much like the Linux debate, the answer does not matter. Novell is no longer a viable alternative to Windows. The market has chosen, the question is not relevant.

[GMaq]

Great Thread,
I've been following you guys for a few days now and I gotta say I'm kinda intrigued, I've got lots of old parts laying around so I think for for fun I'm going to stick together a "Linux Box", I've been checking out the Linux Tools section, and am curious if there is any support for iPods in the Linux world, I know there are lots of encoders for MPEG-4 in Linux or cross platform tools but I don't see much in reference to iPods specifically, any guidance?? I'm pretty handy with hardware and Windows softs but I've never compiled anything in my life, Tekkieman you make a persuasive case for MEPIS, if it wasn't open source you'd make a great salesman!!

[AlecWest]

I agree, this is a great thread. Here's my own situation.

Currently, I have a dual-boot system with 2 hard drives. One hard drive is formatted NTFS and empty ... used only for video capture and editing. The other is partitioned right down the middle - Win98SE on one side, WinXP Home on the other. However, while my current system does everything I want it to do, I realize it's old (and getting older). And, by year's end, I'm planning to buy a new computer system. Note that I said "buy" a new system, not "upgrade" my current one (grin). In short, I plan to run the old computer until the wheels fall off ... unless and until I get the new system up and working properly.

New system particulars? I refuse to do Windows Vista - at least in the foreseeable future. I will not buy from a "store." I know a local geek shop that knows systems inside and out and will have them build a system that, essentially, will be a "triple-boot" system with 4 hard drives:

1) Win98SE standalone HD.
2) WinXP Home standalone HD.
3) NTFS HD for capture/storage only.
4) A Linux distro recommended by the "geek shop" (whichever they recommend).

I'll have about $5 Grand to spend so, this time around, I don't plan on cheaping out. However, I want to keep Win98SE. There are some things I can just do much simpler in a Win98SE environment ... including the use of older aps I love using (some that aren't made anymore) whose drivers cough in XP. And, I want to keep XP because I'm slowly getting used to it for video purposes. But, that may change if I can perform the same functions in a Linux environment. I'm not a computer expert. But I didn't just fall off the haywagon either. And, with retirement approaching, there will be more time for this "old dog" to devote to "learning new tricks." 8) Those new tricks may also include attempts to write my own software.

FWIW, the reason why I'm not planning to run Vista anytime soon is because of what I've read in the media. Vista's licensing agreement is troubling. Apparently, Vista machines will "phone home" often ... and if something exists on a computer that Microsoft doesn't like, they can terminate your license while you're online. I buy a computer to work for ME, not for someone else. Also, a lot of columnists recommend that home users don't consider upgrading to Vista until the first service-pack comes out (one is already in the planning stages). Added to that, Microsoft itself admitted that Vista sales estimates have been embellished ... and not as many people are buying it. In an article I read today, when asked how long Microsoft intends to continue support for XP, a Microsoft exec said it would be at least for 7-10 years - possibly longer. In fact, Microsoft is planning a "SP3" release for sure and possibly an "SP4" as well. So, XP support (and developer support for it) isn't going away anytime soon ... possibly because Microsoft might be worrying that Vista (ulp) won't "catch on" as quickly as they'd wished it would in the home environment (if it catches on at all in the home environment). This same article indicated that some computer professionals, rather than upgrade to Vista, are reconsidering the Macintosh (shudder).

Anyhoo, I like Win98SE ... WinXP will "be around" for a while ... and I suspect Linux will be around for a while, too. So, I'm going for "sure things" in the OS department. And at my age, my next computer may be the last computer I buy ... and may just upgrade from then on.

[ozymango]

Great thread! And I can't resist commenting on one thing:

Anyone who does not think MS has attitude has not spoken to enough MS techs and salespeople.

Are you suggesting that other computer users -- like Unix, Linux, and Mac fans -- don't also have enough attitude to go around?

Okay, I work for a major university and do computer support from the desktop to the network level and you know what, all computers crash. They all crash in their own inimitable ways, of course. If they didn't, what do you think would happen to my job? I'm glad they crash!!!

The only attitude that I ever take issue with is when a customer contacts a service person for help and the tech starts talking smack about whatever computer the person is using. I've got Unix customers, Windows customers, Mac customers, and I make sure that they know that their tech person has respect for their work and their needs, and will recommend the best course of action to solve whatever problem they have. Without an attitude.

[lpn1160]

I wish I could remember the persons name who I am about to quote.
Thanks to him for this

"Windows assumes you're an idiot". "Linux doesn't"

[AlecWest]

Just wanted to add a little P.S. regarding the Vista licensing agreement. Let's say you're the owner of a medium-sized business that has a site license covering 50 PCs. And let's assume that, unbeknown to you, one employee is a wannabe hacker who downloads a hacking tool on Microsoft's "sh*t list" to his system. Then let's assume that the computer "phones home," reports the existence of the tool, and remotely, Microsoft suspends your site license without warning ... leaving all 50 PCs as inert as doorstops for as long as "they" want them to remain that way.

What business owner would want to go with Vista knowing that a single screw-up by one employee could easily shut down his business for an undetermined time?

This is an extreme example, I grant you. But according to the Vista licensing agreement, totally within Microsoft's right to do it.

"Windows assumes you're an idiot," "Linux doesn't."

To paraphrase that thought, how about, "Linux assumes you're a customer, Vista assumes you're an inmate."

[gll99]

@AlecWest
It isn't even that complicated. You know in XP, the number that shows up under the control panel/system/General and then "registered to", well that number is stored in the registry also and is easily converted back to the key you used to register your product. Someone can take a quick look at the number at an unattended station or hack the number with a friendly freeware/shareware trojan and then rebuild and try to re-use the key with MS. You're up a creek if it shows up as being pirated and gets on a black list. Now you have to prove you own the original. Someone could even do it to you on purpose just to put you out of business for a while. Try to fix that over the phone.

I sure hope they hid that a bit better in Vista.

I too want to try Linux but didn't know where to start.