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

[videotape74]

I'm really tired of XP and I don't want to switch to Vista. I've been thinking a long time about giving Linux a go. I was wondering what your opinions are on the OS. I backup alot of DVD's and stuff (usually with CCE SP etc.) on my XP system. Other stuff I use it for are the usual, a few games, internet browsing, chat etc. Also, is there a iPod program for Linux?

So, in all...I'd really just like to know if I should give it a shot and if I do, which is a good version of it to use (Linspire, Xandros, Mandriva etc)? Thanks for any help.

[disturbed1]

Sure, it's worth a shot. For the most part, Linux is a free download. You should know that Linux is Linux, it is not Windows nor a Windows replacement. Remember the first time you ever used Windows? Well, you'll have the same experience in Linux. Sure some things are the same, but for the most part it is a whole other ballgame

CCE is a windows app. You can emulate windows programs inside Linux with wine, but results do vary. There are native Linux programs for most tasks, but there is no CCE-Linux, iTunes-Linux, so on and so.

To give Linux a spin, download a couple of live distros. These will run completely from the CD, with out the need to install. Dream Linux, and ELive are a couple of live distros I like. Head over to www.distrowatch.com to check a few out.

[nonoitall]

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. I've found that Wine has really improved over the years to the point where it is even suitable for a number of Windows games, so chances are, it will probably run your Windows software if there's no Linux counterpart. Just bare in mind that you're using a completely different OS and that it's not going to be comfortable or second-nature the first day you use it.

[lordsmurf]

Every OS has flaws. Running to another won't change that. What exactly do you not like about Windows? There are many things that can be tweaked and changed.

[hrlslcbr]

For a windows user, PCLinuxOS is great. It's a livecd so you can try it before formatting your hard drive.
http://www.pclinuxos.com

I agree with lordsmurf though. Every OS has flaws (including linux). If you have to use windows-only programs like cce, I suggest you just stick with windows xp.

[zoobie]

I've Knoppix Linux that runs in my CD/DVD tray. This way, no installation on the HDD is needed for evaluation and testing. Rather than dl, I just bought the disc someplace for $1

[reylafo]

You can try a dual-boot system. Best of both worlds .My Linux distro is Ubuntu and love it. The only thing that keeps Windows in my comp. is DVD-"backup" programs. Wine in linux is an option but some apps. still don't work. Try it.

[videotape74]

more than anything, i guess i'd like to try something new. if i do decide to try one of the distro's i would go with a dual boot. XP has been good to me, i'd just like something new to try. i guess i'll just read up on the different distro's and see which one might be fun to try.

besides, it took me too long to get things just right with dvd backup/video editing etc. in XP for me to just abandon it now! lol

[oldandinthe way]

I am particularly resistant to O/S replacement.

Why would you want to take a known running system and change the O/S unless why want the challanges of new applications, incompatible applications, new file formats etc etc. Unless you really want to have problems. Linux, Vista or any other O/S bring risks of the unknown. Dual boot gives you twice the chance to have a problem which craps the partition which contains your important data.

If you want the thrill of something new, acquire another machine - there are tons of machines being scapped every day. So many that the Salvation Army won't accept computers. Then put up Linux and play.

I just found a PC being trashed. 1.1ghz AMD processor, 512mb PC2100 memory, 38mb HD, CD-ROM, modem, Ethernet. Major drawback - USB1.1 - solution $10 USB2.0 card. As best as I could tell it was trashed because the disk was full of spyware and viruses and the cost of having a tech clean it up was prohibitive compared to a new machine.

A large portion of the installed Linux base is machines with less horsepower than this, running the Apache server.

[Nelson37]

If you enjoy repeatedly running into brick walls and finding a way over and around them, then you might like it. Be prepared to hit the wall for which there is no solution.

Linux is interesting, has some useful tools and capabilities, and is likely the only viable alternative to MS for the PC. Would I recommend it for the average user, or anyone to whom the PC functions are critical? Absolutely not.

[Steve Stepoway]

Nelson37, for the average user, Linux works perfectly well. You've got a web browser (Firefox), good e-mail client (Thunderbird), office suite (OpenOffice.org), digital photo manipulation app (The GIMP), apps for ripping CDs and making & playing mp3s. That's all that 95+% of people do.

If you want cutting edge hardware (esp graphics cards) you may have a problem with lack of support. If you want to play specific games, you have a problem. But that's also true if you want to play a PS3 game and you've got an XBox. So?? In a few areas Linux applications are lacking. Unfortunately video is one such area. That's why my main video editing system is still running XP.

Granted, to use Linux well you may have to know a little more than "format/re-install" to fix problems. But problems that, in the M$ world are format/re-install problems, don't seem to crop up in the Linux world. I've been running Linux on multiple machines for years and I have never had to reformat a disk and re-install the OS because it trashed itself. It's insanity that people accept that they have to do that.

Is Linux the end-all and be-all for all people? Of course not. But for most, it's a perfectly viable alternative to giving Bill Gates more money for poor software.

Steve

[tekkieman]

You'll always find linux lovers, linux haters, and people who straddle the fence. I personally straddle the fence. For security, peace of mind, stability, and endless control of MY computer, I trust linux.

For my full-time paycheck, my consulting business, and my games, I use Win XP Pro. I really have nothing bad to say about either of them.

Like you, I will not switch to Vista. Or rather, the only way it will ever touch one of my systems is if any of my clients specifically demand it, and then they will be picking up the bill, and it will only run virtualized. Since you say you want to experiment, then experiment.

My new box dual boots XP Pro and linux. In XP, I run three different virtualization applications (VMWare server, Virtual PC, and VirtualBox). I run 3 different linux distros virtualized in XP (Mepis, Ubuntu, and LinuxMint), as well as Win 2000. In linux, I use VMWare and VirtualBox to run virtualized XP Pro, Win 2000, and Win 98SE. No matter which OS I boot into, any other is but a click away. Spread over dual monitors, one OS runs on one monitor, and the other OS on the other monitor.

Other than DirectX games, I haven't found anything I use that can't be done in linux. This includes video editing, transcoding, and DVD backups. Even if I did, again, an alternate OS is a click away, without rebooting. YMMV....

[RLT69]

I am particularly resistant to O/S replacement.

While I agree with this sentiment - used the same damn computer for 10 years and it was fine

However, times are a changing. There will come a time when XP will give up the ghost, i.e., you won't be able to use the latest software or do "something." By exploring other options now, you give yourself time. Time to see if other options will do what you want it to do. Time to learn another operating system. Maybe Linux is for you, maybe not. Only time will tell if it fits your needs.

It sure is a hell of alot cheaper than Vista.

:P

[jman98]

I work as a Unix system administrator. I run Windoze XP at home. Why? As much as I hate Windoze, and I do hate it for the most part, a lot of stuff is really really easy in it and really really hard in Linux.

I totally agree with you on Vista and I am amazed at how many people mindlessly are upgrading to it with no thought at all that maybe it's not a good idea.

Windows XP: Pros - Tools for working with DVDs, CDs, VCDs, sound files, etc. are plentiful and work very very well for this platform. It's relatively easy to get a Windows system connected to your ISP and protected with a firewall.
Cons - Spyware. Viruses. Windows flaking out for no reason. I've twice had bizarre, very serious disk drive problems with Windoze that would never have happened in Linux because of the way the OS works. Basically, twice I've had system32.exe get corrupted and that is not fun to fix.

Linux: Pros - Much more secure than Windows, but you have to understand very well what you are doing to make it so. No need to reboot when adding new programs. Disc drives behave a lot better in my opinion under Linux than any version of Windows.
Cons - Few tools for working with video and audio. The good Windows tools may or may not work with Wine - the only people I know who run Linux have never tried to use these programs with Wine. Can be very tricky to get connected to an ISP as many do not officially support it. Much much less user friendly than Windows. Tekkieman is correct that you can do just about anything in Linux, but you can't do it as elegantly or with as many choices as Windows if you work with audio and video. I think there is only one MPEG video editor for Linux and I don't remember what it is. With Windows, there is often a variety of programs to do what you want.

Dual boot is OK, but the downside is that whatever you are running, the other OS is basically unusable at the same time. Yes there are ways around this, but they're complicated. Dual boot is not an efficient use of disk space, but if you have a really large disk drive, you may not care.

If you want to switch to Linux, you have to be willing to learn a lot of new stuff and to unlearn just about everything you know about Windoze.

A lot of people seem to like Ubuntu Linux (http://www.ubuntu.com) but I'm not sure if it's friendlier to novices than other releases. Linspire might be a good way to go for an unexperienced person.

[Nelson37]

The average user is sometimes unable to find the power switch, can't even plug in the cables if the PC is moved, and calls a technician to install MS Office. Someone who demonstrates the ability to format a floppy disk is an above average user and often becomes the office PC guru.

Linux is totally, completely, absolutely unusable for the average user.

Someone who enjoys a challenge and wouldn't mind building their own TV, computer, boat, car, or airplane from a collection of parts and sparse directions with no pictures might be well suited for Linux.

But the Average User? No Way in Hell. Within 10 minutes of the initial installation they will discover a program they cannot do without which either does not run at all, or must use an emulator which makes the PC perform like it was 3-5 years old. They will realize they have just wasted their time.

[mats.hogberg]

Linux is totally, completely, absolutely unusable for the average user.

Not unusable, but un-configurable. Just like the IT departments would like it. The best OS (from maintenance view) is an OS the user can't fiddle with. Why the popularity oif thin clients? 'Cause the end user can't do anything with'em, besides use the apps the IT dept makes available to them.
Preinstall OpenOffice on a Linux ditro, and the average Joe can do exactly the same as he/she can on Windows (if he/she isn't already "spoiled" with Windows habits, and expects to find things at certain places) - Write mail, textst, do calculations - It's no easier or harder finding the power switch if you run Linux or Windows. But Linux/Unix is easier to lock down.

/Mats

[JohnnyMalaria]

No need to reboot when adding new programs.

Programs designed according to the Windows Logo Certification requirements shouldn't do this. Indeed, to get Windows Logo Certification for software, it must NOT require a reboot.

I've only come across the need for reboots with things like anti-virus software. Most stuff just installs and can be used straight away - including hardware.

[tekkieman]

Linux is totally, completely, absolutely unusable for the average user.

Someone who enjoys a challenge and wouldn't mind building their own TV, computer, boat, car, or airplane from a collection of parts and sparse directions with no pictures might be well suited for Linux.

But the Average User? No Way in Hell. Within 10 minutes of the initial installation they will discover a program they cannot do without which either does not run at all, or must use an emulator which makes the PC perform like it was 3-5 years old. They will realize they have just wasted their time.

If there is an intelligent argument there, it eludes me.

If it is so unusable, what are all the millions of children going to do with all those laptops from OLPC? What OS are they running? Oh yeah, LINUX! (as much as MS tried to wrestle it away once they realized how popular the program really was, and that a $100 laptop could actually be produced)

Of course, when it comes to computers, most children are more adaptable than adults as they don't walk into things with preconceived ideas and forecasts of failure and doom.

[Robert Simandl]

I read on either Slashdot or OSnews recently that Ubuntu is coming out with a new distro called Ubuntu Studio sometime around April. Specifically aimed at the multimedia editing/encoding crowd.

I'm still a Windows guy, but I'll definitely be trying that one out!

http://www.ubuntustudio.org/

[RLT69]

Programs designed according to the Windows Logo Certification requirements shouldn't do this. Indeed, to get Windows Logo Certification for software, it must NOT require a reboot.

Ummm...doesn't Microsoft Office require a reboot once the installation is done? Especially for File Type Associations. What about Service Packs and Updates?

In Windows a reboot is just plain necessary. In Linux it's a rarity. Hell in CrossOver Office, it simulates a reboot when you install MS Office because MS Office requires it.

I'm curious though, hoe many programs are Windows Certified?

[SCDVD]

http://tv.truenuff.com/mac/security.php

[JohnnyMalaria]

Ummm...doesn't Microsoft Office require a reboot once the installation is done? Especially for File Type Associations. What about Service Packs and Updates?

I don't recall having to reboot the last time I installed Office 2003 on a system.

I've had programs claim a reboot is needed but, often, I decline the offer (!) and everything works correctly.

For Service Packs and Updates, the "hotfixes" shouldn't require rebooting - hence the name.

I've installed Service Packs for applications like Office and Visual Studio and been able to continue without the reboot.

This weekend, I might get around to installing Office 2007 on Vista. I'll be paying close attention to see if Microsoft's own applications behave according to the Logo Certification requirements

FYI, the official line is:

2.12 Avoid Reboots During Installation

Criteria

If the application install has ForceReboot actions, this must be documented with a justification.
Files-in-use dialogs authored into Windows Installer packages must contain an option to “Automatically close applications and attempt to restart them after setup is complete.” This additional functionality allows users to avoid reboots through the Restart Manager infrastructure.

Rationale

Rebooting the system after an install is an inconvenient disruption for users and is usually unnecessary. It can be particularly bothersome for machines that require frequent servicing and high availability.

Additional Information

This requirement applies only to applications that use MSI for installation.
For almost all application installs, the Windows Installer ForceReboot action should not be used.
For more information, visit this link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/msi/setup/using_windo...rt_manager.asp

[RLT69]

I see it applies to windows vista!

"Applications that use Windows Installer 4.0 for installation and servicing on Windows Vista automatically use the Restart Manager to reduce system restarts. The default behavior on Windows Vista is to shut down applications rather than shut down and restart the operating system whenever possible. In cases where a system restart is unavoidable, installers can use the Restart Manager API to schedule restarts in such a way that it minimizes the disruption of the user's work flow."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/msi/setup/using_windo...rt_manager.asp

I wonder how well it works. [/quote][/code]

[mats.hogberg]

Well, most of XP automatic updates nags about once every 10 minutes about having to reboot to complete the installation even if you tell it "I will bloody well reboot later, right?"- drives me mad having to put up with that thru a whole busy day when you don't want to lose the 5 minutes a shutdown+bootup is gonna cost you. Not to mention Windows needs restarting now and then. Many web hosts I know have scheduled nightly reboots on all their W2k/2k3 servers.

/Mats

[lordsmurf]

People that refuse to or are unwilling to reboot are idiots.

(not directed at you mat, it seems you understand rebooting, want to avoid confusion)

Probably 95% of the world's "computer problems" are solved simply by turning something off and then back on again. Regardless of OS or hardware, shit happens. Just let it dump the RAM, let it cool off for a few minutes, and then try again.

[tekkieman]

Probably 95% of the world's "computer problems" are solved simply by turning something off and then back on again.

That really should read:

Probably 95% of the world's "Windows problems" are solved simply by turning something off and then back on again.

It really isn't required with linux. Most linux servers have uptimes of months/years. You just won't see that with Windows. With desktops, that's not a big deal, but servers are a different story.

[jagabo]

If it is so unusable, what are all the millions of children going to do with all those laptops from OLPC?

Starve, die from dysentary, malaria...

[JohnnyMalaria]

It really isn't required with linux. Most linux servers have uptimes of months/years. You just won't see that with Windows. With desktops, that's not a big deal, but servers are a different story.

Nonsense.

My network gateway PC runs Windows (Client) and has been up for many months.

Windows Server can - and does - achieve very impressive up-times. It permits hot-swapping of memory, drives, etc etc so that hardware upgrades can be made without having to take the system down.

How about 99.999% uptime?

And http://www.itjungle.com/two/two051204-story01.html ?

[mike1061]

Every OS has flaws. Running to another won't change that. What exactly do you not like about Windows? There are many things that can be tweaked and changed.

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

[tekkieman]

It really isn't required with linux. Most linux servers have uptimes of months/years. You just won't see that with Windows. With desktops, that's not a big deal, but servers are a different story.

Nonsense.

Is it?

How about 99.999% uptime?

That statistic applies only to the super-secret, ultra-costly datacenter edition of 2003 Server, and can only be obtained buy purchasing a "Windows mainframe" hardware-software bundle.

That's why the company built the least-known member of the Windows Server 2003 family: Datacenter Edition. Datacenter is more than just another edition of Windows. It's a special original equipment manufacturer (OEM) version that is only available as part of a hardware and software bundle that basically puts a Windows mainframe class computer into your data center.

What makes Datacenter more robust than any other version of Windows is the hardware it runs on, along with special tweaks included in the operating system.

So, in black-and-white, every other version of Windows cannot boast this level up uptime, and even if MS bothered to give all Windows users these "special tweaks", they mean nothing without the hardware to back it up.

And http://www.itjungle.com/two/two051204-story01.html ?

While the topic of the thread is not Windows versus linux, and I have no real intention of playing dueling links, I have a hard time not suspecting bias in a publication entitled The Windows Observer. Sort of like the"independent" MS paid...bought...sponsored studies in the "Get the Facts" FUD...umm I mean campaign.