Is There Really A Linux That's easy to use for Windows User?

[epsilonalpha]

You guys are almost talking me into it.

Keep Windows and try Linux as a dual boot or on an older machine.

The difficult part nowadays is, find a distro which is "friendly to older hardware"

Some of them might complain that you're still using a "monocore", or will have issues with not-so-outdated video cards, or they don't know what to do with a dial-up modem, etc etc etc

I had less problem with my old pc with sis graphic card trying dozen of distro than the one with modern Radeon card trying to boot Ubuntu. Oh yeah, if you have ATi card, you can pretty much forget Linux altogether.

Linux will always occupy a minority in usage. The reason is simple: It requires above average IQ to use it comfortably. Therefore over half the population will not use it. Bill Gates recognized that simple fact, and made an operating system that nearly everyone can use.
Case closed.

This is absolutely true, having high IQ will make you competent enough to write your own driver since community support is pretty much "deal with it".

[edDV]

I have Linux distributions running successfully on a few single core P4/Celerons and an AMD FX Compaq laptop. No major issues.

Graphics hardware was upper range in the day, mostly NVidia.

As said above I'm not pushing this for video apps other than VLC player. But I have captured IEEE-1394, edited audio/video and accessed various Windows/UNIX networks. I've learned a lot playing with Linux apps and the out of pocket cost was zero*.

I've been using Linux since the early days. Usability is much better now. Keep in mind I'm recommending Linux as an adjunct to Windows, not as a replacement for video processing.


* Except the early Caldera Linux for Windows products and early Motif.

[bendixG15]

I don't knit sweaters because I don't like to knit.

I don't grow roses because I don't want to learn how.

Same for using Linux ..... don't want to and don't want to learn how, my time has better priorities.

[dragonkeeper]

Keep Windows and try Linux as a dual boot or on an older machine. The more you learn Linux, the more you will understand Windows and OSX. A Linux dual boot is also great for trouble shooting a Windows machine.

I agree with Ed here, troubleshooting Windows and retreving lost admin passwors is how i got in to using Linux. Once i saw how powerful it could be I was hooked. I would even take it a step futher try using different "Live CDs" A disk that the Linux OS "Distro" can be run from with out installation. Once\if you find a distro you are happy with then go ahead and do a dual boot installation you will find many guides on the net for doing so.

[AlanHK]

Most desktop oriented Linux are now easy to use... until you ran into problem, or the nightmarish driver problem.

Despite what Linux advocates may tell you, it's NOT easy to solve the problem (remember, they're usually see this from nerd viewpoint), often you have to read sea of threads to find some archaic solution that would not completely solve your problem.

This has not changed for years, and probably not (it's even gotten worse with each new DE). So yeah, not worth the problem.

I've wasted days trying to solve driver and other problems with Windows.
And the worst thing is, when you find your problem is due to a policy decision by Microsoft that they make it difficult or impossible to circumvent.

Linux will always occupy a minority in usage. The reason is simple: It requires above average IQ to use it comfortably. Therefore over half the population will not use it. Bill Gates recognized that simple fact, and made an operating system that nearly everyone can use.
Case closed.

Rubbish. Gates won the market in the 90s by making deals and twisting arms of PC OEMs. Users had no choice when 100% of PCs come with Windows.

Only now when Apple turned an MP3 player into a phone into a tablet did a different OS -- based on Unix -- get any penetration. And Android -- a form of Linux -- came through the door that Jobs had prised open too. And together these probably now have more users than PCs running Windows do.

[Gregg]

I tried several Knoppix live CDs and DVDs so far and they worked pretty good for me. It looks good too.
If you need a PC for browsing, office work and multimedia it's very straightforward no need to install anything.

[yoda313]

And Android -- a form of Linux -- came through the door that Jobs had prised open too. And together these probably now have more users than PCs running Windows do.

But unlike Apple I don't think we'll ever see a fully functioning "android pc" anytime soon. The google pc thing will take forever to take off.

[jimdagys]

Example of how Linux is difficult for below average IQ users: I have puppy Linux on my USB memory stick. I can boot up the PC if Windows is messed up and get to my files. On this puppy Linux, there is a Firefox buried in the start menu. For convenience, I wanted to put the Firefox icon on the desktop. I tried dragging the icon to the desktop, as one would do with Windows. However, that doesn't work with Linux. I tried to read the help menu, and there was something complicated about using the "command line" to get the Foxfire icon on the desktop. I couldn't follow that, so in the end, I gave up.
Now, one may ask, since any operating system (such as Windows or Linux) is designed by engineers with IQs over 150, why can Windows be used by low IQ users, but Linux cannot? The answers is simple. Microsoft has employed a special team of low IQ people, called the Low-Q team, that tests the basic functions of the operating system. If the Low-Q team can't figure it out, then the engineers tweek the operating system to solve this problem. The goal: to have an out-of-the-box operating sytem that can be used (basic functions) by nearly everyone in the world.

[deadrats]

BSD is more hard core. I'd start with Ubuntu which is targeted at Windows users.

actually PC-BSD is more softcore than most linux distros you can name, while it is based on bsd it's closer to giving a windows or OS X experience than it is to giving a bsd experience, though if someone was feeling sexless enough they could still tinker with it bsd style.

[deadrats]

with regards to the idiotic discussion going on with regards to the IQ needed to use either Windows or Linux, i have a near-genius level IQ, i was a physics and comp sci major in college, i am certified as a unix system admin from Pace University and i still consider linux to be a half-assed OS.

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies. if i remember correctly Stallman wanted to created a free version of UNIX that was free of the onerous licensing agreements of the UNIX flavors of the day and created GNU OS, which gained little traction. then Linux announced that he had created a kernel for GNU OS and thus linux was born.

the real question is how much of a sexless virgin does one have to be to actually want to break his balls running an OS originally meant to run on 40+ year old hardware on modern x86 hardware?

seriously, if you're going to use linux as your primary desktop Os why not just come out of the closet already and start singing show tunes?

[intracube]

On this puppy Linux, there is a Firefox buried in the start menu. For convenience, I wanted to put the Firefox icon on the desktop. I tried dragging the icon to the desktop, as one would do with Windows. However, that doesn't work with Linux.

It depends what desktop you're running. With XFCE, creating a desktop or panel icon is done in the same way as Windows. I thought KDE also worked in this way, although I haven't used it for ages.

[Ai Haibara]

Yeah, older versions of Puppy used ROX for the desktop, and dragging anything to the desktop would create an icon shortcut to that file. Not sure about the more recent versions or derivatives, though, especially if they're using anything else to manage the desktop. Haven't tried XFCE.

[the_man_one]

for the price linux rocks... however if u wish to do anything beyond simple tasks like surfing, email, chatting windows is the way to go... if u check out the available op specific software out there probably 99% is windows based (wine cant do everything)... the linux equivilants are written by linux gearheads for their specific purposes which may or maynot work for what u want (the inherent reason linux will never work for the masses)

[chowmein]

with regards to the idiotic discussion going on with regards to the IQ needed to use either Windows or Linux, i have a near-genius level IQ, i was a physics and comp sci major in college, i am certified as a unix system admin from Pace University and i still consider linux to be a half-assed OS.

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies. if i remember correctly Stallman wanted to created a free version of UNIX that was free of the onerous licensing agreements of the UNIX flavors of the day and created GNU OS, which gained little traction. then Linux announced that he had created a kernel for GNU OS and thus linux was born.

the real question is how much of a sexless virgin does one have to be to actually want to break his balls running an OS originally meant to run on 40+ year old hardware on modern x86 hardware?

seriously, if you're going to use linux as your primary desktop Os why not just come out of the closet already and start singing show tunes?

Thanks bro, I almost fell in to the Dark Side, but you made me belly-laugh and urinate on my Ubuntu boot disk. Thanks, man.

[intracube]

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies.
--
...an OS originally meant to run on 40+ year old hardware on modern x86 hardware

OK, I'll bite; Care to give specific examples where the codebase is showing its age? Of course there will be limitations caused by legacy code - but on the flipside, there are benefits in holding onto code that has been thoroughly tested.

It's too easy to make generalisations. Your post can be condensed to "bits of the Linux codebase go back 40 years - bleurgh".

IMO, much bigger issues with Linux are related to the rapid changes to *some* of the desktop environments over the last few years - specifically (KDE/Gnome). I used KDE from the late 90s until last year and ended up dropping it largely due to the complexity, bugs, instability and bloat - some of these problems caused by new backend services like NEPOMUK, Soprano, Akonadi.

Once reliable applications (like Kmail) became dependent on these new services and when said services went t*ts up, which they did with considerable regularity, they screwed up the functionality of any dependent apps.

The services sound a nice idea on paper, but I get the impression those involved in the initial stages of development didn't properly factor in the required skill and/or manpower.

Note I'm writing in the past tense - I haven't used KDE in some time. I've no idea if the situation has improved. Not much, judging by this blog, which echoes my thoughts well:
http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2012/01/konsidered-waste-of-time.html
- and the guy knows considerably more about the inner workings than I.

All that being said, have I moved back to Windows? No - that would just be a different world of hurt.

I switched to a different desktop, and use a different mail client.

[CubDukat]

with regards to the idiotic discussion going on with regards to the IQ needed to use either Windows or Linux, i have a near-genius level IQ, i was a physics and comp sci major in college, i am certified as a unix system admin from Pace University and i still consider linux to be a half-assed OS.

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies. if i remember correctly Stallman wanted to created a free version of UNIX that was free of the onerous licensing agreements of the UNIX flavors of the day and created GNU OS, which gained little traction. then Linux announced that he had created a kernel for GNU OS and thus linux was born.

the real question is how much of a sexless virgin does one have to be to actually want to break his balls running an OS originally meant to run on 40+ year old hardware on modern x86 hardware?

seriously, if you're going to use linux as your primary desktop Os why not just come out of the closet already and start singing show tunes?

Way to keep the conversation classy.

[MJPollard]

Way to keep the conversation classy.

That's why they invented "******* lists," as I sometimes call them; in this case, it's more than appropriate. Too bad they don't work on quoted text; I wouldn't have known he had said anything until you quoted his juvenile spewage.

[AlanHK]

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies.

And DOS was a pirated copy of a clone of CP/M designed to run on 1980s microcomputers.
And Windows is a dumbed down version of Mac OS.
And Mac OS was ripped off from Xerox.

And so what?

The whole reason Unix is still around is that from a very early stage most of the kernel was written in C, not low level assembly. So it was easily ported to other hardware.
Unlike Microsoft software, wedded to Intel 8086 for decades.

seriously, if you're going to use linux as your primary desktop Os why not just come out of the closet already and start singing show tunes?

Idiotic, and highly offensive.

i have a near-genius level IQ,

Who is this genius you're near to?

That's why they invented "******* lists,"

Mr Rats is now on mine.

[AlanHK]

Example of how Linux is difficult for below average IQ users: I have puppy Linux on my USB memory stick. I can boot up the PC if Windows is messed up and get to my files. On this puppy Linux, there is a Firefox buried in the start menu. For convenience, I wanted to put the Firefox icon on the desktop.

Puppy is stripped down to the bone to fit in a tiny footprint. Of course it isn't full featured.
There are a dozen highly user friendly distributions.

[CubDukat]

I'm running a dual-boot system with Win7 Pro 64-bit as my primary OS, but I also am running Mythbuntu 11.10 64-bit as well. Right now, Mythbuntu is more or less serving as a backup for the Windows system. It mirrors most of my shows in WMC7 so that if I lose power and I'm not there to put it back into Windows, at least my shows will still record.

I would like to get Mybuntu setup to the point where it's just as easy to encode Blu-Ray-compatible material as it is for me in Windows. Unfortunately, I am not overly familiar with the CLI commands for x264 so that I can translate my Blu-Ray settings for MeGUI over. I probably just have to sit down with it and just puzzle through it.

And yes, I am one of those who seek to get Linux to the point where it could become my primary OS. If it's good enough for Industrial Light and Magic, it'll sure as hell work for me.

I have to admit, though, I can see a lot of the points that new users may have about Linux. I've long believed that the Linux community is both its own BFF and its own worst enemy combined.

Finally, getting back to the original premise of the post (finding a distro for Windows users), even though I use an Ubuntu variant, I don't really think it's the place to start anymore. For quite some time, I have been concerned about what I see as Canonical beginning to believe their own press. Ubuntu's been on top for so long that they seem to have gotten the attitude that they can do whatever they want and push through any old garbage and people will just accept it because it's Ubuntu and Ubuntu can do no wrong. A perfect example of this is the entire flap over Unity. People have said they don't like that there's no Gnome 2.x fallback option, but Canonical doesn't seem to care.

Therefore, I would choose Linux Mint, if I had to stay with an Ubuntu-based distro. Failing that, I might suggest either Debian (Ubuntu's daddy) or Fedora. They're both fairly easy to use for the new user, but the training wheels are still off for the power user to flex their muscles, so to speak.

[dragonkeeper]

i still consider linux to be a half-assed OS.

Really? How so? From an administration standpoint windows nor OSX comes close to giving me the capabilities that Debian, Suse or Red Hat does. Applications written for Linux often prove to have functions that far exceed those of Windows or OSX applications. Windows and OSX place a great many restrictions on what the user can do and or what resources a program can access. Not to mention the both Windows and Apple bend so easily to the will of the movie and record indusrty, this has never been a problem for me on Linux.

if you read up on the history of linux you realize that it basically started out as a free clone of UNIX, which itself is 40 year old OS designed to run on big iron from the early seventies.

Mindless dribble. Windows was originally designed to run on an 1980 model PC, and is an implementation\extension of MS-Dos. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but isn't MS-Dos based on DOS? You can go back as far as 1960 and find multiple OS with DOS in their name. So Windows was originally based on system that is over 50 years old. I missed your point here.

Thanks bro, I almost fell in to the Dark Side, but you made me belly-laugh and urinate on my Ubuntu boot disk. Thanks, man.

If the aforementioned rederick was able to sway you I believe you have been in the dark a while.

[chowmein]

If the aforementioned rederick was able to sway you I believe you have been in the dark a while.

Aww I thought deadrats made a funny

[edDV]

The whole reason Unix is still around is that from a very early stage most of the kernel was written in C, not low level assembly. So it was easily ported to other hardware.
Unlike Microsoft software, wedded to Intel 8086 for decades.

You forget that Windows was also ported to the DEC Alpha (64bit RISC). See where that got them?

Win8 adds Arm support. Here we go again.

[Poppa_Meth]

I wouldn't say Linux is a half-assed OS. I think it's a very solid OS. Now if you were to say Linux has a half-assed selection of Desktops I'd be more apt to agree with you. The Linux desktops have come a long was but they still have a long way to go to reach a level where they are as user friendly as Windows.

[El Heggunte]

I wouldn't say Linux is a half-assed OS. I think it's a very solid OS. Now if you were to say Linux has a half-assed selection of Desktops I'd be more apt to agree with you. The Linux desktops have come a long was but they still have a long way to go to reach a level where they are as user friendly as Windows.

Indeed, there is a difference between an OS's kernel and the "final" user interface. Regarding this latter, it would be nice e.g. IF the Linux developers admitted that Windows Explorer version 2K is far better than Nautilus or anything Also, a black-and-white hourglass is far less annoying than a silly ball moving up-and-down beside a letter K

Regarding the kernel now, is there any REAL good-reason to never install Linux on other filesystems than ext* and similars?

Especially when the available drivers for Windows are (¿were?) buggy, half-assed, or both.

Just for the record, Windows XP Home Edition works well if installed on a FAT32 partition.

[intracube]

As long as it's in the repos, installing software on linux is far easier than Windows. You pick what you want, click install and ti all happens pretty quickly in the background. You seldom have to restart the computer either to use the software. If it isn't in the repos you may have some issues figuring out how to install it.

If a specific program isn't in an official repository, it's likely to be in an un-official/independent one.

wulf109; In case you're not familiar - a repository is a server which holds up to date versions of programs. Linux distros each have their own official servers, but there are also independent repos that provide a greater range of apps. After installing Linux I always add the Packman repo, as it has a lot of useful multimedia tools.

So if you can't find a program, don't think you have to go to the trouble of downloading the source, unpacking, compiling, etc. Just add the URL to a new repository.

[Khalua]

YLFM OS:
www.ylmf.org/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylmf_OS
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/ylmf-os-ubuntu-based-linux-distro-identical-in-look-and-feel...indows-xp.html
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/ylmf.html

[chowmein]

YLFM OS:
www.ylmf.org/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylmf_OS
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/ylmf-os-ubuntu-based-linux-distro-identical-in-look-and-feel...indows-xp.html
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/ylmf.html

wow!

[Webster]

I don't know why there is an argument on how hard to use linux here.
My 12 years old son (who have no training on the inner working of computer other than when I shown him how to turn it on and the use of the mouse) can turn on his Ubuntu computer. Downloaded and played games and drawing programs like "pencil" on it without me showing him how to do it. So if a 12 years old kid can do it, why can you???

[TreeTops]

Too old maybe?