# linux or windows



## Rakiao (Feb 7, 2009)

seeing How I'm not a super big gamer, I've been thinking of removing windows. Think this is a wise idea? I realy don't see why I need it any more.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 7, 2009)

That depends on what you know about Linux already and why you want Linux (beyond not wanting Windows anymore).  You want to make an inventory of what you have.  Not only will this help you find drivers, but it'll help you find the distros that best fit your needs and capabilities.

The novice-oriented desktop distros, like Ubuntu and Mint, really need as a minimum a system that could run Windows XP well.  Other distros, such as Damn Small Linux, can provide usable desktops on much older and/or less capable systems.  Distros like Gentoo, Sorcerer (and forks), and Linux From Scratch need powerful CPUs and good, strong hard drives to support compiling, but they're great for getting your hands dirty and diving deep into GNU/Linux.

There are many, many more distros to suit whatever it is you want from a Linux-based system.  The one that's right for you, if there is one, really depends on what you have and what you want.

A few sites to help you out:

http://www.linux.org/ - Linux Online

http://www.linux.com/ - Linux.com forums and info

http://distrowatch.com/ - DistroWatch, news about Linux and BSD Unix distributions


----------



## Rakiao (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm basicly learning to be a game sever programmer. Also I like to fool around with web severs. Also I have a basic understanding of linux


----------



## net-cat (Feb 7, 2009)

http://wubi-installer.org/

^ Try Ubuntu. If you like it, install it for real.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 8, 2009)

From personal experience of working with novices not used to Linux (or heck, even computers in general) I can definitely say that Linux and some of the BSD Unix releases have gotten to a point where they are easier to install, use and maintain than Windows.

ArielMT is right though in that it depends largely on what you do.  Games are one big that thing's Windows centric, but as you say, that's not a priority.  Some other applications remain unique to Windows (or sometimes the Mac) like Photoshop, Office, or Visio, and if you like these applications, you might have to stick with Windows.

If you don't use them or would consider trying alternatives to them (never any harm in experimenting!), then you're all set for Linux.  As ArielMT pointed out, there are many distributions, among them I would recommend going with some of the main ones like Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc.  Where I work there are guys who have been into Linux since it's birth as well as Unix for over 30 years, and they use distributions like Ubuntu (their fave) and Fedora now, explaining "I don't have the patience to do it all from scratch anymore", heh.  

The great thing about all of these distributions is that they use a LiveCD.  That means you can boot up the PC or laptop that you intend to put them on and see if everything works without even having to install it.  Even better, this also lets you get a feel for it to see if you like it or not.  I would recommend trying several.  Here's some my personal recommendations along with pros/cons:

*Linux Mint*
*Info:* Built on Ubuntu, but does a lot more than just a slight tweak - has many of it's own unique systems and software such as it's own Software Manager, Backup/Restore system and Updater.  Available in 32 and 64 bit.
 *Pros:* Though based on Ubuntu, it comes with all the extra semi-restricted drivers and/or proprietary codecs installed, so right off the initial install, DVDs are playable, flash is on the browser and everything generally works.  It's very well thought out and easy to use.  It also comes in a few different "flavours" such as XFCE or Fluxbox windows managers, which are easier on resources if you are using an older machine.  It is a more polished and reliable form of Ubuntu (and my personal choice for an OS). 
*Semi-Cons:* It does not update the kernel (core of the OS) quite as often as Ubuntu, so minor optimizations you might miss out on unless you do them manually.  You can alter this by enabling extra repositories, so it's not really a big deal.  It does not provide a "one-click button" for upgrading to the next release.  This is on purpose though as a distribution upgrade is supposed to be seen a risky thing, and not a simple thing.  You can do it manually.
 
*Ubuntu
Info:* The most popular and widely-used Linux distribution today, based on the Debian branch of Linux.  It is completely free, meaning it contains no proprietary software or restricted software unless you add it yourself.
*Pros:* Updates are frequent and well tested.  There is a massive choice of software to install, and it is very easy to use.  Provides an easy one-button-click way of updating from one version to the next.  
*Cons:* Provides an easy one-button-click way of updating from one version to the next (yes I know that's also listed as a "pro", but honestly it can swing both ways because full version changes can sometimes backfire).  Because it is 100% free/open source, some semi-restricted things like Flash, Java, DVD codecs and so on are not installed by default.  They are, however, fairly easy to add in (really no harder than Windows).  Not quite as polished as Mint, so times there are some things that don't work as well as they should off an initial release.

*Kubuntu
* *Info:* Ubuntu with the KDE desktop shell instead of Gnome.
*Pros:* Pretty much the same Pros as Ubuntu since it is part of the same family.  The difference is that it uses the KDE shell instead of Gnome (and a few different pieces of software as a result).
 *Cons:* Mostly the same as Ubuntu.  The KDE shell, though visually more impressive, is much harder on resources and is perhaps the most bloated of all Linux shells.  I would not suggest trying it on an older PC.
  
*Xubuntu*
*Info:* Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop shell instead of Gnome.
*Pros:* Basically the same as Ubuntu except that it uses the XFCE shell/windowmanager which is easier on resources than Ubuntu or Mint's Gnome.  Better for slightly older systems and/or systems with less memory (512M or so, for example).  
*Cons:* Same as Ubuntu.  XFCE is a tiny bit less functional than Gnome and not quite as pretty... if that matters to you.

* Fedora*
*Info:* Based on the Red Hat branch of Linux, but designed as fully open-source and free.
*Pros:* Similar pros to Ubuntu, though this distribution is based on Red-Hat Linux while Ubuntu is based on Debian.  Has a great selection of software and excellent support for things. 
 *Cons:* The RPM package management system is not quite as good as the APT system in Ubuntu. Fedora does tend to have some newer versions of software upon release, but some cutting edge adaptation can result in beta-like issues.

* CentOS*
*Info:* Business/Enterprise class free version of Linux based on Red-Hat.  Quoting ArielMT "_The name "CentOS" stands for "Community Enterprise OS," and it's based on the freely available sources for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)_."
*Pros:* With it's close relation to Red Hat, it has similar pros to Fedora.  The main thing about CentOS is that it's designed for absolute stability.  Excellent for a dedicated workstation or server. It also uses the YUM package management system which is much better than RPM (though it does also support RPMs). If you like stability, this is the OS for you.
*Cons:* Because it's built for stability, it is not as current as other releases.  The various applications available via the package manager as well as the kernel and shell (which is Gnome), are all several versions behind the latest.  This is to ensure absolute stability with the OS.  They do patch regularly to resolve any known security exploits in the older applications.  So if you like your programs to be fairly cutting edge, you'll have to install them all manually with this OS.  

*Puppy Linux*
*Info:* Originally written by Barry Kauler (retired programmer in Oz), and named after his beloved dog, it is a miniature Linux distribution that boasts incredible functionality and speed.  It also has many interesting variations.
*Pros:* Unbelievably fast and small!  Can make a 14 year old PC actually run quite well and will run on as little as 64M of RAM!  Excellent hardware detection and support.  Extremely easy to use with help and wizards that go out of their way to explain things.  Has many versions or "Puplets" that let you pick just about any look, variation, minimized or maxed out install you want (MacPup is great - looks like the MacOS, or NOP - Nearly Office Pup - is loaded with good office software and a very Windows-like feel). WarMocK is currently working on his own version called K-9, which is similar to NOP only much nicer looking, more feature rich, and will be the only version to support multiple users. _Since version 5, Puppy has been based on the binaries and code from Ubuntu, but these are built using Barry's insanely powerful script Woof, which takes only what it needs and recompiles select bits to make a unique platform, so it is not really a tweak on Ubuntu, just happens to shop at the same code store. _
*Cons:* Puppy is a single-user mini-distribution, so it boots right into the desktop rather than asking for a user name.  You can add passwords to it, but you have to use root (K-9 will be the only version to alter this behaviour).  Installing software not available via its package manager or as a .PET file on the various Puppy sites can require a bit of Linux knowledge, though it's not that hard.  It does not upgrade/patch itself automatically like the major distros, though upgrading it when there's a new release is not difficult.

*PC-BSD*
*Info:* An easy to install and use version of Unix based on FreeBSD.
*Pros:* This is a FreeBSD-based Unix distribution.  It's very stable, and very efficient at multitasking and general resource use.  Can run Linux binaries as well as several other OS's and platforms (even some older game consoles).  Easy to install and use software system via their PBI download site.  Reliable and simple updating/upgrading. 
*Cons:* Uses the KDE 4.X shell, which is hard on resources, and not quite as user-friendly to a novice (in my opinion/experience anyway).  Would suggest it only for a more modern/capable system.  FreeBSD can be a little pickier about hardware, so not really a good choice for a laptop.  It's not quite a LiveCD in that the CD just boots up the installer, so you can't see what it's like before you install it... though you can at least see if it will boot.

There's plenty more options out there too - just giving you a few I've played around with and use myself.  Check out the Distrowatch link ArielMT gave to see a bunch of other choices, and if possible, try to stick with the LiveCD's to see if you can at least get it booted up and running on the PC you intend to use it on.  Remember too that you can also use dual-boot and maintain a running copy of Windows if you like. 

Yet another cool option is you can also purchase a new laptop or desktop with Linux already on it.  There are several companies that offer this (even Dell), but one of the better ones (if not the best one) is System76.  

The Berkeley Linux User Blog did an article that lists all the major (and good) resellers of systems that come with Linux or BSD preinstalled: http://www.berkeleylug.com/?p=168


----------



## Pi (Feb 8, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Fedora
> Pros: Similar pros to Ubuntu, though this distribution is based on Red-Hat Linux while Ubutu is based on Debian.  Has a great selection of software and excellent support for things.  Cons: The RPM package management system is not quite as good as the APT system in Ubuntu.



I strongly recommend AGAINST anything RPM based. They might work fine if you never do any maintenance, but dealing with the RPM system is painful.


----------



## Moka (Feb 8, 2009)

If you're just getting started with Linux, my advice is to partition your drive in two and install Linux on the second partition. At least until you're sure you don't need Windows anymore.

It's definitely doable though. I stopped using Windows 6 or 7 years ago in favor of OS X and FreeBSD, and haven't looked back. The only think I keep Windows around for (via VMWare) is to test websites I'm developing in IE.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 8, 2009)

Pi said:


> I strongly recommend AGAINST anything RPM based. They might work fine if you never do any maintenance, but dealing with the RPM system is painful.



Yeah, I would agree.  The YUM system is a bit more evolved version of RPM, which does a nice job, but RPM itself can be problematic.


----------



## Runefox (Feb 8, 2009)

Pi said:


> I strongly recommend AGAINST anything RPM based. They might work fine if you never do any maintenance, but dealing with the RPM system is painful.


Holy fucking shit. I agree with Pi! o____o

RPM is synonymous with dependency hell for me. It doesn't quite have a decent package manager like apt or even Gentoo's portage, and you typically have to go looking online for things - Sometimes things that are quite obscure. Mandriva makes it a little easier with urpmi, but not by much, and unless things have changed recently, it's not configured properly out of the box. Yum is supposedly pretty good, but I haven't used it. Long story short, Debian-based is the way to go for ease of use overall, in my opinion, and even Gentoo's package manager makes it easier to resolve dependencies than RPM.


----------



## net-cat (Feb 8, 2009)

From what I've heard, FreeBSD ports does a better job of resolving dependencies than RPM does...


----------



## Pi (Feb 8, 2009)

Runefox said:


> RPM is synonymous with dependency hell for me. It doesn't quite have a decent package manager like apt or even Gentoo's portage, and you typically have to go looking online for things - Sometimes things that are quite obscure. Mandriva makes it a little easier with urpmi, but not by much, and unless things have changed recently, it's not configured properly out of the box. Yum is supposedly pretty good, but I haven't used it. Long story short, Debian-based is the way to go for ease of use overall, in my opinion, and even Gentoo's package manager makes it easier to resolve dependencies than RPM.



yum is pain in a bucket. I haven't tried urpmi because of a bad experience with Mandrake back in the day (configured by default to lock out accounts which haven't changed their passwords in some amount of days, which is no good when your machine comes up with a date years in the past, then runs ntp and suddenly locks out root.).

I don't like Gentoo because it doesn't behave like ports/pkgsrc except superficially. There's no base-system/package distinction, the binary builds (not the -bin packages) are a little dicey, and it seems to encourage you to put in odd compiler options.


----------



## Rakiao (Feb 11, 2009)

Thanks every one I went with Ubuntu, it was easy to install and it works very well


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 12, 2009)

Rakiao said:


> Thanks every one I went with Ubuntu, it was easy to install and it works very well



w00t!  Good choice.   I would suggest adding this repository (don't worry, it exaplains how to on the page:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu

These are for the restricted packages like Java, Flash, Libdvdcss (for playing DVDs), etc.  That way if your media programs need something like that, they can grab it easily from the repo.  Enjoy. ^_^


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 12, 2009)

I like that run-down of linux versions. I was lost with a lot of this stuff until I recently decided to give Ubuntu a try, and I'm actually still lost. But one thing I'll throw in, for what it's worth: Ubuntu's installer set up a partition for me, so preparing one before I ran the installer was a mistake. Just in case anyone else was going to go through the process of expanding/shrinking volumes *big bitty/bitey words*. Maybe I'll try tinkering with Puppy Linux.. the idea of my Vista box running a little speedier sounds appealing.

apparently Ubuntu commonly has an issue with MY wireless adapter model, and I'm not up to speed on all the process of patching and what-not yet ._.


Also, I'm filing a motion to have this stickied.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 12, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> Maybe I'll try tinkering with Puppy Linux.. the idea of my Vista box running a little speedier sounds appealing.


Let's put it this way: Puppy Linux runs smoothly under old hardware, on the newest hardware you'll most likely break all speed records. 
I hope you like boot times of about 12-15 seconds (if you use XFCE instead of JWM). ;-)


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 12, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> XFCE





WarMocK said:


> JWM



What are those? o:

I'm a complete newblet when it comes to this stuff... all uncharted territory.

And I do think I like the idea of fast. I just have this aging laptop, inflicted with Vista. I know I'll have to keep it for things like digital arts (at least for now), but I don't plan on doing much gaming or anything requiring windows.


----------



## eternal_flare (Feb 12, 2009)

I tried Mint once, it's nice, I would stick to it if it didn't pose a problem with my built-in wirelesslan card.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 12, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> What are those? o:
> 
> I'm a complete newblet when it comes to this stuff... all uncharted territory.
> 
> And I do think I like the idea of fast. I just have this aging laptop, inflicted with Vista. I know I'll have to keep it for things like digital arts (at least for now), but I don't plan on doing much gaming or anything requiring windows.


Oh ok. Sorry.
XFCE and JWM are "window managers". These tool sets are responsible for displaying and managing the windows on your screen, and also usually include the panels and the tools that are responsible for the window decoration (which is not the job of the actual window manager, though). You can get them in all sizes and flavors, from the 9 kb failsafe wm to the monsters that are KDE and Gnome. XFCE is (or better WAS) the smallest wm that met the criteria for a DE (Desktop Environment), since it's a package of tools that provide a consistent look&feel of your system, just like Gnome and KDE. The newest (and fourth real desktop environment, I skip Enlightenment since it lacks a filemanager by default) is LXDE, but I haven't tested it yet.
If you need some help with deciding which version of Puppy you want to try feel free to PM me, I tested about a dozen derivates of it. 8)


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 12, 2009)

First off Grim... very cute avatar. 



Grimfang said:


> I like that run-down of linux versions. I was lost with a lot of this stuff until I recently decided to give Ubuntu a try, and I'm actually still lost. But one thing I'll throw in, for what it's worth: Ubuntu's installer set up a partition for me, so preparing one before I ran the installer was a mistake. Just in case anyone else was going to go through the process of expanding/shrinking volumes *big bitty/bitey words*. Maybe I'll try tinkering with Puppy Linux.. the idea of my Vista box running a little speedier sounds appealing.
> 
> apparently Ubuntu commonly has an issue with MY wireless adapter model, and I'm not up to speed on all the process of patching and what-not yet ._.



A tool that you can run to get your wireless working is using the ndiswrapper - it's a program that allows Linux to use Windows drivers for wireless cards in the instances where there free drivers don't work.  Here's a forum article outlining how to do it: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper

I also suggest, as recommended in my last post, the Medibuntu repository install.  

I pre-partition my drives using G-Parted LiveCD, but then, I'm also kinda old-school and like the partitions to be set up a certain way - always selected manual mode for the Ubuntu installer, but I think the auto mode and guided mode work pretty slick now.

As WarMock said, Puppy Linux will be kinda shocking on a new PC. :shock:  It's extremely small and efficient, and would be kinda scary on a new PC.  The only drawback is, as stated in my points above, that it's a mini-distribution, so unlike Ubuntu, it doesn't have a vast software repository to quickly grab stuff from, does not maintain the install packages (IE, keep them up to date) and does not patch itself (you have to do that when a new version comes out).  Now... none of that is very hard with Puppy, and there's tons of resources and articles on the Net on how to do it, but it's always good to be aware of this stuff before you try it.


----------



## Rakiao (Feb 12, 2009)

just one question, what linux c++ compliers are out there?  and also is there any good c++ idles out there as well? or is code blocks the only good one?


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 12, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> It's extremely small and efficient, and would be kinda scary on a new PC.



Booting Pupy live off a usb key on a Intel Core2 Duo@2gHz with 4gb ram is beyond scary fast.....don't blink.  Makes booting off the CDrom almost seem slow by comparison.

I should make a live USB version of Xubuntu for comparison when I get a minute.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 12, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Booting Pupy live off a usb key on a Intel Core2 Duo@2gHz with 4gb ram is beyond scary fast.....don't blink.  Makes booting off the CDrom almost seem slow by comparison.
> 
> I should make a live USB version of Xubuntu for comparison when I get a minute.


I wonder how fast it would be on a quad-core ...


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 12, 2009)

Rakiao said:


> just one question, what linux c++ compliers are out there?  and also is there any good c++ idles out there as well? or is code blocks the only good one?



Ouch... that I can't help with - not touched programming for about 12 years.  Unless someone here has direct experience or suggestions, you might just be best off to Google it and see the Linux community prefers.


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 12, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Oh ok. Sorry.
> XFCE and JWM are "window managers". These tool sets are responsible for displaying and managing the windows on your screen, and also usually include the panels and the tools that are responsible for the window decoration (which is not the job of the actual window manager, though). You can get them in all sizes and flavors, from the 9 kb failsafe wm to the monsters that are KDE and Gnome. XFCE is (or better WAS) the smallest wm that met the criteria for a DE (Desktop Environment), since it's a package of tools that provide a consistent look&feel of your system, just like Gnome and KDE. The newest (and fourth real desktop environment, I skip Enlightenment since it lacks a filemanager by default) is LXDE, but I haven't tested it yet.
> If you need some help with deciding which version of Puppy you want to try feel free to PM me, I tested about a dozen derivates of it. 8)



oh wow..
Well, thank you! I'm at a loss as to whether or not to try using the mentioned ndiswrapper tool on Ubuntu, or go with Puppy Linux. The latter sounds like it'll be a bit above the "novice" environment that Ubuntu provides.

But wow, I'm learning. The more you and ToeClaws talk, the more this all makes sense, heheh.



ToeClaws said:


> First off Grim... very cute avatar.



Thanks! It was done by CursedMarked/Butch (I hope I'm getting the names right). Just dug it up to change things up a bit, heheh..



ToeClaws said:


> A tool that you can run to get your wireless working is using the ndiswrapper - it's a program that allows Linux to use Windows drivers for wireless cards in the instances where there free drivers don't work.  Here's a forum article outlining how to do it: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper
> 
> I also suggest, as recommended in my last post, the Medibuntu repository install.
> 
> ...



Before, I figured it'd all be a learning experience. So I set up Ubuntu and decided to dive in. Oddly, everything worked fine! I had wireless internet access and everything, but that was at first. At some point, it just died, and I couldn't seem to figure it out. I was troubleshooting for a couple hours, and I kept seeing mention of this "ndiswrapper". The Ubuntu forums were down for maintenance that night as well... so I just gave up, haha.

But wow.. this is all so helpful. I have no idea about a bunch of the things you've mentioned, like Medibuntu, and such.. but I don't want to tire this resource out, so I'll try to do a bit of research on my own as well.

I have to admit.. even though it may cause difficulty, I'm very tempted to try playing with Puppy Linux, after mention of the speed and all.

So, does Wine only run in Ubuntu? Or would that run in Pup as well? I'm wondering if I'd be able to run OpenCanvas in linux. If that were possible, I may never have a reason to use windows again on this computer.

*excitement!*


----------



## Runefox (Feb 12, 2009)

Wine runs in all distributions of Linux, as most programs do. Typically, if something is available for Linux, then it's available for Ubuntu (or Debian, which is compatible), Redhat/Fedora (or Mandriva, Suse, etc, which are compatible), Gentoo/Sabayan, Slackware...


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 12, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> I wonder how fast it would be on a quad-core ...



If I find a blade with a USB port, I'll let you know....



Rakiao said:


> just one question, what linux c++ compliers are out there?  and also is there any good c++ idles out there as well? or is code blocks the only good one?



I thought that Emacs and maybe G++ (the gnu C compiler) were the definitve standards for C+ on linux?

I stay way from the coding side of the house.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 12, 2009)

double tap.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 15, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> oh wow..
> Well, thank you! I'm at a loss as to whether or not to try using the mentioned ndiswrapper tool on Ubuntu, or go with Puppy Linux. The latter sounds like it'll be a bit above the "novice" environment that Ubuntu provides.



Trust me, it's easy. Puppy has a lot of almost self-explanary wizards to help you configure your system properly, and hardware support is among the best I've ever seen on a Linux system. 



Grimfang said:


> But wow, I'm learning. The more you and ToeClaws talk, the more this all makes sense, heheh.


Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly. Linux has become alot easier than when I started using it (about 6 years ago).




Grimfang said:


> I have to admit.. even though it may cause difficulty, I'm very tempted to try playing with Puppy Linux, after mention of the speed and all.


Well, just download the ISO (about 95 MB), burn it onto a CD, boot from it, and try it. It'll remind you of the times of win 2k when you see the Desktop (JWM is just plaÃ­n ugly imho), but for the beginning, you shouldn't go for the look anyway, as you need some experiences with linux before starting to tweak it (and you can do A LOT OF THINGS with it ... 8)).



Grimfang said:


> So, does Wine only run in Ubuntu? Or would that run in Pup as well? I'm wondering if I'd be able to run OpenCanvas in linux. If that were possible, I may never have a reason to use windows again on this computer.
> 
> *excitement!*


Wine is available for Puppy, I can provide you with some useful download links if you want. There you can also get GIMP, OpenOffice, LMMS etc. if you need it.
Oh, and if you want to get your graphics tablet up and running: There's also a very good guide how to do that on Puppy (gotta look for the link first). I just set it up, and it works fine, except for some functions (I'll need to activate them asap, but it got way too late when I started installing the kernel module and simply was too lazy editing the Xorg config. xP).


----------



## Rakiao (Feb 15, 2009)

You were right its G++, It works perfectly with the code::blocks idler. Also Linux runs WAY faster than windows and has programs that are equal to windows programs. Start-up,restart. etc get done faster and makes me a happy programmer. 

So overall I'm happy I got Linux because it easily beats windows in both speed and programs.


----------



## Koda (Feb 15, 2009)

If you enjoy watching your computer compile, and learning lots about drivers, the kernel, and the inner workings of your system, you can also give http://www.gentoo.org/ Gentoo Linux a try. 

Just make sure you have a second computer or a laptop so you can follow through the AWESOME documentation. Installing this linux (when I did it.. probably easier now) was a LOT of typing commands... Using tar, portage, kernel config, hard drive partitions, software, internet... Learned a lot. Then switched to Kubuntu 

I did break emerge once.. And basically every shell command.. that was fun!

Emacs is nice, but it's OLD as hell. Gnome (Ubuntu) comes with Gedit which is a GTK based application which does the sort of stuff emacs does (code highlighting, automatic indentation, support for pretty much every language you'd need), except its far more user friendly. Emacs is 99% keyboard command driven, which for some people is awesome. For most though, you're going to want dialog windows and check boxes for options.. not Ctrl-X, Ctrl-S...

If you want the shiny, prettyness of KDE (Kubuntu), you can use Kate. Kate is KDE's code editing tool, but it also has a lot more features than Gedit. Things like having the ability to open a console window within the editor window is pretty nice. (Emacs can do it too, if you know the keyboard shortcuts). It's also a 'Tabbed' editor, like Gedit.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 15, 2009)

I went back and edited the list that I first posted to include Kubuntu.  In short, it's mostly got the same pros/cons as Ubuntu with the only big difference being the X-Window shell.  Visually it's prettier, but KDE takes a lot of resources compared to the other shells.  Running it on older hardware is generally not a good idea.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 15, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> I went back and edited the list that I first posted to include Kubuntu.  In short, it's mostly got the same pros/cons as Ubuntu with the only big difference being the X-Window shell.  Visually it's prettier, but KDE takes a lot of resources compared to the other shells.  Running it on older hardware is generally not a good idea.


Well, I think it's safe to say that it will run VERY smoothly on any hardware that can run XP.


----------



## net-cat (Feb 15, 2009)

Ah... programming on linux.

For Ubuntu, install the build-essentials package. (Either through Synaptic Package Manager or `sudo apt-get install build-essentials`)

That should give you gcc, g++, make and the basic headers you need to link to the standard libraries.

Also learn to write Makefiles.


----------



## Eevee (Feb 15, 2009)

build-essential, not build-essentials.


----------



## Rakiao (Feb 15, 2009)

Any one know of a good place to learn Linux socket programming? (C++) I forgot win-sock is for windows lmao >.<


----------



## Koda (Feb 15, 2009)

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xns/syssocket.h.html

This site is a great reference for the STL.

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=22086
http://retran.org/beej/clientserver.html

Once you 'connect' you write to its stream and the data magically gets to the other end!


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 15, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Well, I think it's safe to say that it will run VERY smoothly on any hardware that can run XP.



Heh, good point - I guess by "old" I'm referring to pretty dated hardware that other Linux/Unix distros still run good on.   Anything build in the last 5 years shouldn't strain in the least running KDE.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 16, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Heh, good point - I guess by "old" I'm referring to pretty dated hardware that other Linux/Unix distros still run good on.   Anything build in the last 5 years shouldn't strain in the least running KDE.


My PC is five years old, and it has no problems with KDE 4.1 (tested Famelix and Vixta on it), no matter what effects I added. My other PC (7 years) has no problems with it either.


----------



## cavedeamon (Mar 1, 2009)

Running Kubuntu 8.10 with unstable repositories to get KDE 4.2 and it really really looks good, but some stuff broke in the process like my box switching :'(


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 1, 2009)

cavedeamon said:


> Running Kubuntu 8.10 with unstable repositories to get KDE 4.2 and it really really looks good, but some stuff broke in the process like my box switching :'(


WOWZY! Just looked at the official screenshots - and now my fingers itch and I feel like I could give KDE a try again (after more than 3 years). :shock:


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 1, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> WOWZY! Just looked at the official screenshots - and now my fingers itch and I feel like I could give KDE a try again (after more than 3 years). :shock:



I dunno... seems like a gross waste of CPU power to do all the fancy animation, widgets and so on.  I never got the point of all of those - they just make using your system vastly more complicated.  All a shell needs is some form of taskbar, a way to switch between windows, and a way to manage icons (menu and desktop) to launch apps.  Oh, and maybe a clock in the corner somewhere.  

I used to love KDE back in the 1.X version days because it was the first and only window manager of the time that tried to integrate multiple tools into it so that everything was nicely managed and functional, but since about the 3.X versions, it's gotten much too bloated by trying to add fancy "fluff" features that really aren't necessary for functionality.  Same can be said for things like the "Aero" interface on Windows - what a terrible waste of CPU power.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 1, 2009)

Well, it's only a waste of CPU power if you don't have a decent graphics adapter; With something with a suitable hardware accelerator, it actually offloads the task of drawing windows and other things from your CPU. Compiz does this properly; Aero, for some strange reason, hogs a whole lot of RAM while doing its thing. With Compiz, you can use it just like a normal window manager, without any fancy effects, and just have the task of drawing and moving windows and other things offloaded from the CPU.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, it's only a waste of CPU power if you don't have a decent graphics adapter; With something with a suitable hardware accelerator, it actually offloads the task of drawing windows and other things from your CPU. Compiz does this properly; Aero, for some strange reason, hogs a whole lot of RAM while doing its thing. With Compiz, you can use it just like a normal window manager, without any fancy effects, and just have the task of drawing and moving windows and other things offloaded from the CPU.


Believe it or not: I made Beryl run on a GF2 MX card (it was my father's office PC), as well as on the trident chipset on my laptop. Try that with Aero.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 1, 2009)

Yeah, my laptop exploded, so I'm on a new machine now. Vista aero runs smoothly on this one since I have a decent amount of RAM and CPU-power, as well as an actual GPU. It feels wasteful though, just knowing how much energy I'm burning just to run Windows, haha.

So now I'm facing the dilemma again: Windows or Linux. (or both)

For the most part, I use Steam(TF2), opencanvas, photoshop, paint.net, firefox, openoffice. I saw something about Steam gamers running linux, so I think I'd be fine there, and most of the applications I use are open source. Those tend to be linux-friendly, of course.

I think I'll try Ubuntu again though. Now that I have some processor power, I won't have any need for puppy linux, although really light OS's and applications do feel great. But I probably need more user-friendliness.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 1, 2009)

If vista runs smoothly, Ubuntu will break the sound barrier


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 1, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> If vista runs smoothly, Ubuntu will break the sound barrier



You just know how to push my techy buttons, hahaha. I'm definitely going to do it now.

Just curious: I've never done anything with a 64-bit computer before. This is a first for me.. so is there a big difference between 32/64-bit versions? Do you gain or lose anything between the two?


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 1, 2009)

Ok Grimfang, but remember: try the live-CD first and see if you can work with Gnome, otherwise use Kubuntu (KDE is more similar to the windows desktop). And if it works you may consider installing it next to Vista. Read the instructions VERY carefully, setting up a system for dual boot might become tricky if you never did this kind of stuff before.


----------



## Hackfox (Mar 1, 2009)

Well Windows to me for the simplicity. I believe it's easier because most programs run well with it. Linux is my back up for security I use it if anything goes wrong as sort of an alternative safe mode. But that's just me.


----------



## Toaster (Mar 1, 2009)

you can run alot of xp/95 programs using wine. So I guess you could play steam games. Also, i'm looking for a good ubuntu dock bar, any one know of one?


----------



## Eevee (Mar 1, 2009)

there's AWN, Avant Window Navigator, but if you have a good launcher (gnome-do) there's really no point to a dock

of course gnome-do now _has_ a dock built in so I guess that's cool?


also re KDE 4.2: I tried it on a spare machine and it felt, well, like a shinier 3.4.  KDE has always felt kinda unfinished to me, and it seems like they are always too busy adding Hot New Stuff to sit down and _polish_ it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, it's only a waste of CPU power if you don't have a decent graphics adapter; With something with a suitable hardware accelerator, it actually offloads the task of drawing windows and other things from your CPU. Compiz does this properly; Aero, for some strange reason, hogs a whole lot of RAM while doing its thing. With Compiz, you can use it just like a normal window manager, without any fancy effects, and just have the task of drawing and moving windows and other things offloaded from the CPU.



Interesting point there - in Linux/Unix, managers like Compiz do an awesome job of offloading all graphics work to the GPU so that they're not burdening the CPU (which means total sense since the GPU is optimized for just that sorta thing).  In Windows, Microsoft didn't really do a good job of this (gee, there's a shocker ) - there's still a lot of CPU dependencies with the MS system, and a big RAM drain (seems like they're preferring system ram over video ram).  

Nonetheless, I still take issue with fluff, probably just because I'm a minimalist.  I also think that one of Linux and Unix's great strengths has been that it can do well on a very broad age range of hardware platforms.  With things like Compiz, Berryl and KDE 4.X, that's beginning to change because you can't pop that on an old Pentium II based machine anymore and expect it to do very well.  *scratches head* Of course... one would wonder why someone's still running such machines and expecting to do hi-colour graphics and openGL on them.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> there's AWN, Avant Window Navigator, but if you have a good launcher (gnome-do) there's really no point to a dock
> 
> of course gnome-do now _has_ a dock built in so I guess that's cool?


AWN requires you to activate the composite manager, which might slow down your system a bit (depending on the GPU). The same applies to cairo-dock.
If you simply want an application launcher you can use wBar or simdock (I'm using wBar, and it runs on every machine I tested so far, without any notable loss of performance).



Eevee said:


> also re KDE 4.2: I tried it on a spare machine and it felt, well, like a shinier 3.4.  KDE has always felt kinda unfinished to me, and it seems like they are always too busy adding Hot New Stuff to sit down and _polish_ it.


Well, the new version looks more promising than the previous versions. But since I haven's used KDE for three years now I'm not really up-to-date about what it can do and what not. Any KDE users around that want to do some promotion for their desktop of choice?


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

docks suck for launchers.  seriously: http://do.davebsd.com/


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> docks suck for launchers.  seriously: http://do.davebsd.com/


And why?


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

clicking is slow
icons are often too similar to tell apart at a glance
running programs that are not fixed to the dock as shortcuts means everything else moves, which defeats muscle memory
it takes up a good chunk of space without providing any real benefit besides eye candy


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 2, 2009)

Eevee said:


> clicking is slow
> icons are often too similar to tell apart at a glance
> running programs that are not fixed to the dock as shortcuts means everything else moves, which defeats muscle memory
> it takes up a good chunk of space without providing any real benefit besides eye candy



1) typing is slower in case of most PC users
2) Feel free to change the icons as you see fit to make them easier to distinguish from each other (most standard icons look crappy anyways )
3)ALT+TAB, this helps you with training your reflexes as well xD
4)No icons on the desktop, the icons are concentrated in a very small area (no more searching for the icon of the app you wanna start)


----------



## Rayne (Mar 2, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> (no more searching for the icon of the app you wanna start)



This is also true with launchers.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 2, 2009)

Rayne said:


> This is also true with launchers.


Which is why I use wbar. It's not a full-scale dock but a simple yet useful application launcher (unlike cairo-dock or AWN, which come with more extra functions). I still got cairo-dock installed, but I rarely used it since it felt kinda slow when compared to wbar (just my personal opinion).


----------



## Eevee (Mar 2, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> 1) typing is slower in case of most PC users
> 2) Feel free to change the icons as you see fit to make them easier to distinguish from each other (most standard icons look crappy anyways )
> 3)ALT+TAB, this helps you with training your reflexes as well xD
> 4)No icons on the desktop, the icons are concentrated in a very small area (no more searching for the icon of the app you wanna start)


1. You only have to type a character or two.  I start Terminal with 't'.  I start Firefox with 'f'.  I don't have to hunt for anything; just mash a couple keys.  Good launchers learn pretty quickly.
2. Or I could just not have to worry about it...
3. I mean for launching NEW apps.  When you run an app not in the dock, its icon is added temporarily, which shifts everything else to the left to keep the whole thing centered.  Now none of your icons are in the same place.
4. From my observation, it seems to take up as much space as two or three taskbars.  Windows often sit on top of the desktop, but docks tend to claim their entire horizontal space in most people's setups, and if they don't then you have to summon them somehow which is even slower.
And the whole point of a launcher is that you can have _infinite_ applications in the same amount of space (that is, no space at all) without ever having to learn anything new.  Every program I have installed, every control panel-esque applet, every Pidgin contact, all of my bookmarks, and much of my filesystem is contained within the same interface.  I don't have to go hunting anywhere just because something isn't within my top eight programs, and I don't have to waste screen space on a launch icon for something I'm almost always running.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 3, 2009)

1)That would make you a perfect candidate for my ShortCut app launcher. Hit the Win-Key (in my case) to start the launcher, then hit "f" for firefox (if you configured it that way), and firefox starts immediately. If the "f" key is broken, click the firefox icon displayed on the window that pops up with the application. Two keys to start an app - can't go faster than that. 8)
2)Well, I don't worry about it, and I know few people who actually do. ^^
3)I suggest you turn this feature off asap, it would give me the creeps. :shock:
4)Seriously? You can't condemn the dock for that if people throw in every app they got. If you exclude the gamers, the vast majority of users need less than a dozen applications frequently, and this is what the dock should be used for anyways: frequently used apps!
I understand your point about the launcher you mentioned, it sounds like a pretty nice concept. Maybe I'll give it a try when I installed the gnome framework again, but there are way too many micro distros I downloaded and burned on CD for testing purposes, can't let them go to waste. ;-)


----------



## Eevee (Mar 3, 2009)

Except a launcher is automatic with zero configuration required and no practical limit to what it can remember.  You seem to be missing this crucial point.  Yes, I could configure lots of shortcuts and menus and whatever...  or I could use a launcher and _not have to do anything_.  It Just Works.

If your dock does not include icons for apps you run that aren't pinned to the dock, then it's not a dock.  It's a quick launch bar.  Which is already part of the panels in pretty much every window manager save OS X.

I mean docks take up a lot of *height*.  That's most of the point, after all: big, accessible icons.  And you are making my point for me here; if it only contains frequently used apps, then at any given time I'm probably already running them, so why am I wasting screen space on them?


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 3, 2009)

Ah ok, I see where the cat jumps. Obviously the problem about a proper definition that a dock is kicked in again. The people I talked to (which were *NIX veterans) when setting up my first customized desktop defined a "dock" as a graphical bar-like tool that is at least able to launch applications (and may include extra functions like a taskbar, clock etc). I guess that definition is a remnant from the beginning of the dock (aka NeXTstep) when the sole purpose of the dock was to launch programs, but imho it still is legit (if you use "dock" as the main category and "launch bar" as a necessary subcategory to point out the difference between the tools following the original concept and the monsters that have evolved from it).


----------



## ArielMT (Mar 3, 2009)

I gave up on bars and drifted back to the hint of nerdvanna that is WindowMaker.  (Run a frequently used program, clip or dock its icon, forget about the menu again.)

The only bars I have left are the title bar, the status bar, and the bar my Morgan is waiting for me on.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 3, 2009)

Ah yes, WindowMaker ... got that one installed when I still used Gentoo. Talk about ancient toys ... ^^


----------



## Windreader (Mar 25, 2009)

there is the option of running multi-OS or a virtual machine environment.

Google VMware. If you want to try a virtual machine environment.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 26, 2009)

Windreader said:


> Google VMware.


I'd suggest Sun VirtualBox or Microsoft VirtualPC. To use VMWare these days, you're either going to have to stick with an old version, live with a web based interface or crack the Workstation version.


----------



## Carenath (Mar 26, 2009)

Pi said:


> I strongly recommend AGAINST anything RPM based. They might work fine if you never do any maintenance, but dealing with the RPM system is painful.


You get used to it pretty quickly I have to say. Especially when you dont have much of a choice compared to the pain of compiling a custom kernel and rooting out all the patches you need..

I had used Debian before, and I love APT. But Debian's kernel is broken and they seem to have no interest in fixing it. I ended up switching to CentOS which surprise-surprise works perfectly for what I wanted to do.



net-cat said:


> I'd suggest Sun VirtualBox or Microsoft VirtualPC. To use VMWare these days, you're either going to have to stick with an old version, live with a web based interface or crack the Workstation version.


VirtualBox I recommend strongly... VirtualPC seems to hate anything that isnt Windows >.-.>


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 26, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I had used Debian before, and I love APT. But Debian's kernel is broken and they seem to have no interest in fixing it. I ended up switching to CentOS which surprise-surprise works perfectly for what I wanted to do.



I used to use CentOS as well - one MAJOR perk of CentOS is the use of YUM instead of RPM as the primary package manager - much better system.  The only reason I stopped using it though was the lack of anything current.  Even Ubuntu, in my opinion, doesn't get current releases out quick enough, but CentOS is way behind because they are very strict about testing and ensuring stability.  For a dedicated workstation or server, that's very nice thing to know, but someone that wants to run the latest firefox, latest java, latest Gnome and so on CentOS becomes a pain in the butt because you have then manually install all that stuff yourself.  I just lost the patience to do that.  

Hmm... I should edit my post listing options to include CentOS - it's a good one. 



Carenath said:


> VirtualBox I recommend strongly... VirtualPC seems to hate anything that isnt Windows >.-.>



Seconded!  And yes... Virtual PC seems to be very pro Windows... I wonder why that could be?


----------



## Ruko (Apr 19, 2009)

I've been running Ubuntu for the last 4 months. Wow, is it so much better and faster than running XP. Boot up time is like 15 seconds. Steam works just fine in WINE and for the most part everything I ever used in windows is compatible. The only exception is iTunes for my iPod Touch. So I have to locate a windows comp. with iTunes on it, anytime I want to add more music.


----------



## Toaster (Apr 19, 2009)

Ruko said:


> I've been running Ubuntu for the last 4 months. Wow, is it so much better and faster than running XP. Boot up time is like 15 seconds. Steam works just fine in WINE and for the most part everything I ever used in windows is compatible. The only exception is iTunes for my iPod Touch. So I have to locate a windows comp. with iTunes on it, anytime I want to add more music.



.this. But I've been using it waaaay longer.


----------



## incongruency (Apr 19, 2009)

Ruko said:


> I've been running Ubuntu for the last 4 months. Wow, is it so much better and faster than running XP. Boot up time is like 15 seconds. Steam works just fine in WINE and for the most part everything I ever used in windows is compatible. *The only exception is iTunes for my iPod Touch. So I have to locate a windows comp. with iTunes on it, anytime I want to add more music.*



Try Rhythmbox.  It's worked quite well for me.


----------



## Ruko (Apr 19, 2009)

I have tried Rhythmbox, it doesn't seem compatible with the iPod Touch, just the older iPods. Unless I'm doing something wrong, but if it does in fact work with the Touch, tell me your secret. Plz.


----------



## Eevee (Apr 20, 2009)

The only thing I'm aware of that works with the Touch is gtkpod, which has a terrible UI, and which requires jailbreaking your iPod and mounting it over wifi with sshfs.

The iPod Touch sucks for playing music and I don't care about the worthless apps on it, though, so I eventually gave up and went back to my video iPod with Rockbox.


----------



## net-cat (Apr 20, 2009)

iPhone/iPod Touch apps remind me of Windows Mobile apps. Of course with the former, that's because the platform is locked down and really only interesting to people who want to make a quick buck. With the latter, it's so much of a moving target in terms of API nobody really bothers maintaining _useful_ apps for it. (Mimimo and PocketPutty, for instance.)


----------



## Ruko (May 4, 2009)

Eevee said:


> The only thing I'm aware of that works with the Touch is gtkpod, which has a terrible UI, and which requires jailbreaking your iPod and mounting it over wifi with sshfs.



Do you know of any tutorials for this? My touch is jailbroken, but I can not for the life of me figure out how to mount it into gtkpod via SSH


----------



## ArielMT (May 5, 2009)

@ToeClaws:

You might want to edit the CentOS description a bit more.  The name "CentOS" stands for "Community Enterprise OS," and it's based on the freely available sources for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).



Carenath said:


> You get used to it pretty quickly I have to say. Especially when you dont have much of a choice compared to the pain of compiling a custom kernel and rooting out all the patches you need.



I've been dealing with RPM for four years now.  Scratch that.  Avoiding dealing with it more than absolutely necessary.  There's no getting used to it, ever.  RPM is still so incredibly painful that compiling from source and maintaining tarballs is easier and more preferable to me.

YUM is a minor improvement, sort of a half-assed APT for RPM-based distros.  I can get used to YUM if given no other choice.

The latest example of RPM's pain...

Just a week ago, I needed to see the pre- and post-install scripts that a particular package ran after an update, because one of the updates broke something it wasn't supposed to even touch.  Being used to debs and tarballs, I naively assumed I could just open it with an archive manager and look for scripts and control files.  Oh, how wrong I was.

No such scripts or control files were found.  It took nearly an hour of reading, searching, and more reading to figure out the proper incantation and proper sort of virgin to sacrifice to invoke rpm on the package to show me the scripts.

I've been advising against RPM-based distros for as long as I've known about Linux because of the absolute pain and torment the RPM system is.

(Sorry, RPM is one of the few things that gets me passionate.)


----------



## Eevee (May 5, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Do you know of any tutorials for this? My touch is jailbroken, but I can not for the life of me figure out how to mount it into gtkpod via SSH


https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PortableDevices/iPhone

don't think they use the same approach any more but I gave away my Touch and can't be buggered to flip through this right now

enjoy!


----------



## yiffytimesnews (May 14, 2009)

I have been through this, you see I have this laptop which had a locked up version of Windows on it, meaning a it was virused bad. So I wiped the drive and tried Ubuntu Linux for roughly 18 months. What I learned was this, not all graphic drivers for Linux work, and getting codecs to work is a matter of luck more than anything else. So after I could not install anything any more as support for that version had expired. I decided to go back to Windows so I could do more on my laptop. I just wanted to do more that is why I switched back.


----------



## donwolfani (May 17, 2009)

personally I like linux because when a window freezes and u go to close it it actually closes however all software made ever for any kind of pc will work on some version of windows ever so I think having both on different machines would be good


----------



## yiffytimesnews (May 22, 2009)

I fully admit setting up Linux is way easier than Windows.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 22, 2009)

yiffytimesnews said:


> I fully admit setting up Linux is way easier than Windows.



Definitely, though it's a heck of a long way from where it was ten years ago.  Many of the Linux/BSD installs of a decade ago were quite the adventure, and definitely not something a novice would be able to do.  I'm really glad that most major distributions realized they needed to simplify that process.


----------



## WarMocK (May 22, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Definitely, though it's a heck of a long way from where it was ten years ago.  Many of the Linux/BSD installs of a decade ago were quite the adventure, and definitely not something a novice would be able to do.  I'm really glad that most major distributions realized they needed to simplify that process.


^This, but I think they still got some work to do in order to make it perfect. ;-)
Installation time is not that much of an issue (ok, I'm kinda spoiled by Puppy Linux when it comes to that, which takes about 3-5 minutes depending if you also have to install the bootloader xD), but after installing a few Ubunus and Co. I still think they should be careful with offering too much automation and instead rely on more self-explaining dialogs (are they still offering automatic installation by default in the Ubuntu installer? Many people chose that and frequently killed their Win XP installation with it. ).


----------



## ToeClaws (May 22, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> ^This, but I think they still got some work to do in order to make it perfect. ;-)
> Installation time is not that much of an issue (ok, I'm kinda spoiled by Puppy Linux when it comes to that, which takes about 3-5 minutes depending if you also have to install the bootloader xD), but after installing a few Ubunus and Co. I still think they should be careful with offering too much automation and instead rely on more self-explaining dialogs (are they still offering automatic installation by default in the Ubuntu installer? Many people chose that and frequently killed their Win XP installation with it. ).



Agreed there.  Too much automation can sometimes be dangerous - my neighbour blew away his Windows when he decided to try Ubuntu out in a dual boot.  Granted - part of that is the user not always reading the options carefully, but part of it is the automation too.  I don't particularly like the automated partition system in Ubuntu and always opt to set mine up manually (and even that's a heck of a lot easier than it was 10 years ago).

And yeah, Puppy's install is just way too easy, but then, Puppy is a very unique twist on Linux that really does make it a fun experience.


----------



## WarMocK (May 22, 2009)

BTW: http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05488

Now waiting for the NOP version.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 22, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> BTW: http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=05488
> 
> Now waiting for the NOP version.



Sweet!  Wasn't there when I checked this morning.  Yeah - NOP and MacPup should be coming out with updated versions anytime now.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 25, 2009)

I've added an update to my big info/break down post on the first page that has a link from the Berkeley Linux User's blog about all the well known companies that make and sell PCs, laptops and netbooks with Linux preinstalled: http://www.berkeleylug.com/?p=168

Good stuff.


----------



## Toaster (May 25, 2009)

I love linux, it's more mainstream now, but sometimes I wish  I was around for the hard stuff.......


----------



## chasseurdetoile (May 25, 2009)

Linux is not bad, depends on the needs and if I'd not be a windows developper I'd probably switch.

Tho I must say that Intel's linux netbook interface seems very nice! http://arstechnica.com/open-source/...l-brings-rich-ui-to-moblin-linux-platform.ars it's very slick one.


----------



## Night-Leopard-800 (Sep 9, 2009)

As an avid Ubuntu user, I highly recommend Linux and don't see any reason to keep Windows around, unless you have a program you can't live without, and won't run in the WINE Windows emulator. If you ditch Windows, you ditch the crap Microsoft dishes out and keep the money you would otherwise spend on Windows upgrades.


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 9, 2009)

Night-Leopard-800 said:


> As an avid Ubuntu user, I highly recommend Linux and don't see any reason to keep Windows around, unless you have a program you can't live without, and won't run in the WINE Windows emulator. If you ditch Windows, you ditch the crap Microsoft dishes out and keep the money you would otherwise spend on Windows upgrades.



This reminded me - I forgot to mention my experiences with WINE of late.  I use Linux on my laptop, which is what I'm on 90% of the time, and initially kept XP on a small partition solely to run Photoshop (after 13+ years of using it, I find it hard to be without it).  For the heck of it, I installed it under WINE to see if a) I could, and b) it'd work, and work it did!  In fact, it's worked so perfectly, I've never had to use XP for it again.  Ironically, Photoshop has been more stable in WINE than in XP - no crashes yet, whereas in XP it would occasionally die on me.


----------



## Duality Jack (Sep 9, 2009)

I am a Linux man I enjoy Ubuntu and Backtrack mostly my experiences with Red hat where... miserable at best.


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 9, 2009)

I really must say that it's cool to see how many people start to use linux now. A few years ago, that definitely wouldn't have been possible. Fortunately lots of enthusiasts joined the linux community and did what the egoistic wannabe-admins (which were quite a big part of the linux users in these days) should have done: making the system userfriendly enough for people who just want to launch a program instead of jerking off to the gcc output when compiling a kernel.


----------



## Irreverent (Sep 9, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> A few years ago, that definitely wouldn't have been possible.



A few years ago, downloading ISO images at 56kb/s or waiting for CD's to arrive in the mail was a pain in the ass.  It took weeks for a box of Mandrake manuals and 3.5" floppies to clear Canada Customs and the Mail. (the bandwidth was good, it was the latency that sucked! :razz: ) 

And while I agree that linux is entirely more user friendly than it was five years ago, the penetration of DSL/Cable and live-CD's has probably done just as much or more for linux footprint than changes to the interface.


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 9, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> And while I agree that linux is entirely more user friendly than it was five years ago, the penetration of DSL/Cable and live-CD's has probably done just as much or more for linux footprint than changes to the interface.


Not to mention Microsoft's "superior" and "hardware efficient"new operating system Windows Vista. *cough!*


PS: You may turn the irony and sarcasm detectors on again, I'm done in this post.


----------



## feathery (Oct 5, 2009)

Well Windows obviously has many capability's even gaming to be one of them for sure. However i have yet to try linux, hearing much positive responses from linix users though id say linux is better then windows.


----------



## Darkwolfy502 (Oct 10, 2009)

Windows all the way

I mainly like Windows Vista, I have no Service Packs installed =P

MAY OR MAY NOT get Windows 7


----------



## Liam (Nov 27, 2009)

I had ubuntu on my laptop for a while.   I tried to get the wireless to work.
Let's just say going into kernel panic within seconds of turning on the wireless is not fun.
It's going to take some time and effort to get a second shot at it going now that Ubuntu is gone, what's left of my hard drive is poorly partitioned, and that those partitions are all almost full.  That and I've consistently have had issues trying to get the most (Highest resolution possible for monitor and using video card) out of my video card. 
 $sudo dpkg-reconfigure /etc/X11/xorg-config  
I've used that too many times.


----------



## ToeClaws (Dec 10, 2009)

Updated info on my big post on the first page: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=854560&postcount=5

For others that posted some helpful stuff, I recommend revisiting it and keeping it up-to-date for folks who might be visiting this thread for reference.


----------



## Axelfox (Dec 22, 2009)

Have Windows Vista and Linux Ubuntu in a dual-boot enviroment.


----------



## Kairuk (Dec 28, 2009)

*Pro's and con's*

You're not a serious gamer you still have to think about other games, such as Second Life, Maplestory, or any 'Casual play' games like such, if you just use your computer for browser based, like Earth Eternal or Runescape, or just post on forums or draw.
Ubuntu has really good graphics design so its perfect if you're an artist.

To stop tl;dr here are the pro's and con's

Pros:
Good graphics design: But not good compared to photoshop
Opensource: You can just Keygen most windows things anyways

Cons:
No download games
Dosent support lots of things.

I would stick with windows, or if you want a change Mac.

Hope i helped;
Kairuk the Tech Savvy Wolf.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 28, 2009)

Welcome to Fur Affinity Forums!



Kairuk said:


> You're not a serious gamer you still have to think about other games, such as Second Life, Maplestory, or any 'Casual play' games like such, if you just use your computer for browser based, like Earth Eternal or Runescape, or just post on forums or draw.
> Ubuntu has really good graphics design so its perfect if you're an artist.



To whom was this rant directed?



Kairuk said:


> To stop tl;dr here are the pro's and con's



Post #5 isn't exactly tl;dr.



Kairuk said:


> Pros:
> Good graphics design: But not good compared to photoshop



This is an opinion, and it's well known that Photoshop, like many Adobe applications, isn't sold in a Linux version.



Kairuk said:


> Opensource: You can just Keygen most windows things anyways



Is this advocating piracy or a logic disconnect?



Kairuk said:


> Cons:
> No download games



Many Windows games for download can be played on Linux via Wine, and some games (such as SL) have Linux-native clients.



Kairuk said:


> Dosent support lots of things.



Such as?

Also, Windows doesn't support a lot of things, either, unless you include third-party drivers.


----------



## Gray Fang (Jan 26, 2010)

wow.. 5 pages of this 

For me it's pretty simple, I got a powerfull machine and I like too play new modern games, Photoshop and generaly like be able too run any Programs/game on my computer that I want too. 

So I run Windows 7 64 Ultimate. Abit heavy to run but not a problem and most stable windows so far I have used, excep Win 98 SE/2k but thats too old 

I do have Linux on one machine, one of those useless mini notebooks, as it sucks too hardcore for the Win XP it came with. there was a finnished Linux Eee version ofr that Asus Eee mini crap that was easy too use.

Gota say it run better, but none of my programs or games can run on it, so well basicaly for writing and web.


When all programs and games becomes OS intependant, then well I will take wathever is quickest/ simplest too use and configure. with highest performance and stability. Until then Only windows will fill the need for those of us who likes the option to use a computer for wide varraity of crap without much fuzz.

even tho it sucks ass... damn microsoft... it's the one and only


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 26, 2010)

Gray Fang said:


> wow.. 5 pages of this
> 
> For me it's pretty simple, I got a powerfull machine and I like too play new modern games, Photoshop and generaly like be able too run any Programs/game on my computer that I want too.
> 
> ...


Which is why I always propose that people should check out what they do every day and then try to find out if it's possible under Linux as well. Saves you a lot of headaches and unnecessary journeys through various linux forums which end up with the result that you can't do this and that under Linux atm. ;-)
As a gamer, Linux still ain't the best choice for you (unless your games are not that state-of-the-art and thus are not supported by WINE yet). PS runs under WINE, so that wouldn't be a problem.
As for your netbook issue: they were never designed to run games, just for browsing and office work. That doesn't make them that useless at all, just if you try to use it as a cheap substitute for a game PC or a console.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 26, 2010)

Gray Fang said:


> For me it's pretty simple, I got a powerfull machine and I like too play new modern games, Photoshop and generaly like be able too run any Programs/game on my computer that I want too.



Photoshop works great on Linux under WINE.  Would be nice to see a native Linux version, but Adobe is likely never to do so as long as Microsoft has them in their pockets.  Think I've ranted enough about Windows to go into the game thing and the future of it for me.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 26, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Photoshop works great on Linux under WINE.  Would be nice to see a native Linux version, but Adobe is likely never to do so as long as Microsoft has them in their pockets.  Think I've ranted enough about Windows to go into the game thing and the future of it for me.


*g
Just write it into a text file, then C&P it whenever necessary - saves quite some typing and fits 99% of the time.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 26, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Photoshop works great on Linux under WINE.  Would be nice to see a native Linux version, but Adobe is likely never to do so as long as Microsoft has them in their pockets.  Think I've ranted enough about Windows to go into the game thing and the future of it for me.



This is true. 

I really need to play with my laptop and throw in that other hard drive so I can get familar with Linux again.   It's just one of those things on my to-do list that keeps slipping my mind.  Seeing that Photoshop works really well on it thanks to WINE and considering how much memory XP chews up on the laptop, it's silly that I keep putting it off.


----------



## Gray Fang (Jan 26, 2010)

CAThulu said:


> This is true.
> 
> I really need to play with my laptop and throw in that other hard drive so I can get familar with Linux again.   It's just one of those things on my to-do list that keeps slipping my mind.  Seeing that Photoshop works really well on it thanks to WINE and considering how much memory XP chews up on the laptop, it's silly that I keep putting it off.



XP chews up memory?  thats a new one  XP barely uses memory just a few hundred MB. and my win 7 barely uses 1 gb, out of 8gb total, I use alot of simultanious games/applications and Never even go over 50% usage, so it's safe too say memory usage aint really an issue on modern computers.

Anyways Newer windows like Seven uses verry little if ya got verry little as it's more atapting and dynamic than XP so Might run better on older computers then XP aswell.

Oh and about the netbok issue... That is fine it was only meant for Web/ typing out on jobs and sutch easy too bring. So Linux works well there I just wanted too mention how badly it sucked with the XP it was designed for


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 26, 2010)

Gray Fang said:


> XP chews up memory?  thats a new one  XP barely uses memory just a few hundred MB. and my win 7 barely uses 1 gb, out of 8gb total, I use alot of simultanious games/applications and Never even go over 50% usage, so it's safe too say memory usage aint really an issue on modern computers.



Only... Windows has never had a clue how to use memory very _well_.  Windows' efficiency with RAM use can be likened to the neatness on the canvas of artists that throw buckets of paint into the backwash of a jet engine.



Gray Fang said:


> Anyways Newer windows like Seven uses verry little if ya got verry little as it's more atapting and dynamic than XP so Might run better on older computers then XP aswell.



I highly doubt that.  Even if it's somewhat savvy at how it works with the physical RAM, the OS has a 7 to 10g foot print, which would be nearly 1/4 of the drive on CAThulu's laptop.  That's a bit large.  Plus there's that other couple of wee little issues too: a) being able to afford the outrageous price of 7, and b) agreeing to the latest MS EULA, which is terrible for user rights.

The problem with CAThulu's laptop is that it's at its maximum of 512M of RAM.  To me, XP requires 1g to work efficiently.  Likewise I would say that Mint or Ubuntu or other similar full distributions require the same.  Lightweight ones like MoonOS, WattOS, Puppy, Arch and so one can do well with less.


----------



## haydenluis (Jan 28, 2010)

Hi,
According to me Linux is stable but Window is simpler and easier for casual peps.So I will go with windows.


----------



## william727 (Feb 24, 2010)

linux vs windows my opinion is that once games (if they ever) go mainstream on both platforms i will get linux but not before because i like playing bioshock call of duty and all windows based games


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

Right, time for a bit of mild thread necrophilia (the kind that requires embalming fluid)

The memory allocation habits of Windows are a lot different from how most UNIX systems do things, because it stores more information about data structures in kernel space. On 32-bit systems, XP may allocate up to a gig of RAM for these purposes. There are some kernel switches that screw with this (/3gb and /pae)

While some memory is permanently locked because of this, programs that use a lot of native UI stuff (read: most applications that aren't games or video players) will end up sucking up less memory, because some of the information about those objects reside in kernel spaceâ€”essentially giving games a disadvantage in memory usage versus applications, whereas on Unix, where X11 is a lazy bum, the balance is more even.

However, I can attest from experimentation and experience that XP will actually run with just 256 MB of RAM without hiccups. It's important to remember that a lot of the software we use these days is pretty damn memory-hungry, and developers have become more ambitious in the features they implement as the average specs on their users' machines improve. If you find XP sluggish on a machine that's only got half a gig of RAM, consider using browsers with older design architectures (you'd be surprised how much lighter SeaMonkey is versus Firefox in terms of memory usage) and perhaps older versions of other applications.

There are also lots of whizzy services in XP that you can turn off to speed up the machine; here is a pretty good tutorial.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 18, 2010)

Excellent bit of info Rhetorica!  Yes, XP can and does run well with a little RAM, so long as you keep the applications very simple.  I think users forget that over the last 11 years of of the NT5.X kernel being around, programs got dramatically larger and more complicated.  In 2000, it was not uncommon to have a business workstation running (comfortably) Windows 2000 with 128M of RAM.  All of the typical daily-use programs were much smaller, and also simpler.  This has pretty much been the way of things for the PC since it hit the market.

There is one caution that I would make though - in using older versions of applications, only do so if you can use one that has remained actively patched/updated.  Older versions of browsers, for example, often contain a lot of exploits.  Modern small options would be the better route, such Rhetorica's suggestion of SeaMonkey (which is also the choice for compact Linux distros like Puppy).

As for services... oh good gods yes, half of the services XP ships with can be turned off.  I imagine it's probably worse in the newer Windows versions.  The guide link about is great, and in addition to that, there are some good tweaking programs to help tune other Windows parameters to be more efficient.  Of them I've found the "Advanced Windows Care" package to be one of the better ones.

Hmm... wonder if we should create a Sticky "OS Tweaking" thread...


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 18, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Hmm... wonder if we should create a Sticky "OS Tweaking" thread...



Actually, we should.....two of them in fact.  A Wintel and a Linux one.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> Wintel



oh god what year is it

_you are like so uncool_


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 18, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Modern small options would be the better route, such Rhetorica's suggestion of SeaMonkey (which is also the choice for compact Linux distros like Puppy).



QFT.
That's the path I follow with the applications I pack into K-9. The result: it runs like a charm on my new BlackBox HTPC (VIA C7 CPU @ 1 GHz, 1 Gig of RAM, unichrome GPU), and I can both watch vids and browse with a pretty fair load on the system. 



ToeClaws said:


> Hmm... wonder if we should create a Sticky "OS Tweaking" thread...


*Thumbs up*


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

On the topic of older versionsâ€”most definitely old browsers would be a hazard. But I bet Winamp 2 isn't going to kill anyone, much less pose a significant security threat.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 18, 2010)

Rhetorica said:


> On the topic of older versionsâ€”most definitely old browsers would be a hazard. But I bet Winamp 2 isn't going to kill anyone, much less pose a significant security threat.


Phew, now that's REALLY old


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

Well, if you don't plan on playing video with it (because you've got something better like VLC or Media Player Classic), and hate the Winamp 3 skin system anyway because it's a shining example of XML-related obesity, 2.95 (I think that was the last version) suddenly doesn't look so bad, given its feature list. At that point it's really a question of whether you want a media library or not (if you do, Foobar2000 becomes a great option.)


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 18, 2010)

<<< VLC user since ... Oo ... god it's been so long now, I seriously don't know how long it's been xD

Still got Winamp on my XP machine, but only for streaming purposes when I play DJ again and moderate a tiny CC internet radio station.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Apr 24, 2010)

If you want to spend hours to become some sort of computer whiz, linux is the way to go.  You have to hold it in your arms and stroke it to get things to do just what you want them to do.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 24, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> If you want to spend hours to become some sort of computer whiz, Windows is the way to go.  You have to hold it in your arms and stroke it to get things to do just what you want them to do.



Fix'd.  At least with Linux, I don't have to relearn any of the basics every time a new version comes out.


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 25, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> If you want to spend hours to become some sort of computer whiz, linux is the way to go.  You have to hold it in your arms and stroke it to get things to do just what you want them to do.


You do? :-|
I watch movies, I used to play games like UT (now I don't play anything because of the lack of time), I do my office work for my job, browse, chat ...
and all I need to do is to start the application for it by clicking on the icon in my dock, and that's it.
Installation of the OS has become very easy as well these days, same goes for installing the tools of your choice. Personally I don't install tools anymore, though - I pack them into a SquashFS container file, and mount it into the system when needed. Saves a lot of space and time. ;-)


----------



## Runefox (Apr 25, 2010)

A lot of distros nowadays JustWork(TM) on a wide range of hardware. There's still some nagging points with some wireless controllers and graphics adapters (mainly in the latter needing proprietary drivers (except Radeon video cards, they're running under open source drivers now!)), but there's a huge range of drivers and typically you don't even need to bother. With the new Ubuntu 10.04 beta, for example, all of my hardware was detected out of the box, including my Auzen X-Fi Prelude and my Radeon HD 4850, both of which have been incredibly difficult to get working on occasion, and in fact even HDMI audio is supported on my Radeon. Video works flawlessly even across multiple monitors and using Compiz effects with smooth playback, audio is amazingly good (considering it's PulseAudio-controlled), and hell, it even starts up in record time.

Contrast to Windows, in most cases virtually none of the hardware is picked off out of the box, you have to run around grabbing drivers from the manufacturers' websites or use an incredibly outdated driver CD. Either that or you've got an OEM image disc and you reset to the factory state, complete with bloatware and again-ancient drivers.

Windows is still far more convenient for the gamer, though. I feel very comfortable in Ubuntu 10.04 for doing virtually anything else, but unfortunately, I always end up coming back to Windows to get my gaming fix. That in mind, I've set up symlinks in the config folders of my common apps across both platforms, so my IM logs, browsing history/favourites, e-mail and so on are consistent across Linux and Windows. Bit of a crude way to go about it, but it's no-maintenance.


----------



## rcha123 (May 10, 2010)

Linux is more easy than Windows. I am using Linux sine 2001 and Honestly I have installed windows on my desktop but It is difficult to work on this.  the main advantage of linux is protection from viruses.


----------



## net-cat (May 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> (except Radeon video cards, they're running under open source drivers now!)


Wait. xorg-radeonhd isn't complete shit anymore? I'll have to check this out at some point...

What cards are they running, these days? Full 3D?


----------



## ToeClaws (May 10, 2010)

net-cat said:


> Wait. xorg-radeonhd isn't complete shit anymore? I'll have to check this out at some point...
> 
> What cards are they running, these days? Full 3D?



I dunno... I'm running a HD4870 on my main box in Mint, and though their drivers and control panel are certainly better than they used to be, they're still not quite as functional as the Nvidia ones.  For example, one very simple feature that's completely missing - what colour depth I'm running at.


----------



## net-cat (May 10, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> I dunno... I'm running a HD4870 on my main box in Mint, and though their drivers and control panel are certainly better than they used to be, they're still not quite as functional as the Nvidia ones.  For example, one very simple feature that's completely missing - what colour depth I'm running at.


And that's the xorg-radeonhd drivers? Not the ATI-fglrxasdfghyasdflkjbasdvasdiub binary drivers?


----------



## Runefox (May 10, 2010)

The xorg-radeonhd drivers as of 1.3.0 are working properly up to the Radeon HD 4000-series with 3D acceleration, and works properly with the built-in multimon applet (Ubuntu 10.04). The 3D acceleration isn't entirely complete, but works with most Compiz features and accelerates video properly, while also working for most native Linux games. The FGLRX driver is still faster in raw performance (not to say radeonhd is notably slow), and is the only driver that works with, for example, games running via Wine. The FGLRX driver isn't as bad as it used to be, but it doesn't integrate nearly so well as the xorg-radeonhd driver.

While running Ubuntu 10.04, I've been using xorg-radeonhd exclusively.


----------



## ToeClaws (May 10, 2010)

Hmm... to be honest, I'll need to see which one I'm using.  Did you have to jump through any extra hoops to install the xorg-radeonhd ones?


----------



## Runefox (May 10, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Hmm... to be honest, I'll need to see which one I'm using.  Did you have to jump through any extra hoops to install the xorg-radeonhd ones?



Nope, they were used by xorg by default. I had to grab FGLRX via the Restricted Drivers applet (or otherwise grab it from ATI's website, which I didn't feel like doing since they're easier to remove this way).


----------



## ToeClaws (May 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Nope, they were used by xorg by default. I had to grab FGLRX via the Restricted Drivers applet (or otherwise grab it from ATI's website, which I didn't feel like doing since they're easier to remove this way).



But you're talking Ubuntu 10.04.  I'm running Mint 8 on the systems at home, which is still on Ubuntu 9.10.  At any rate, I'll have to check it tonight to see.


----------



## Runefox (May 10, 2010)

Well, I'm not sure what you'd need to do there. The 1.3.0 radeonhd driver dropped around October of 2009, so I'm not terribly sure what you might have to do to get it, if anything. Had I just gone Gentoo again, I'd probably be a lot more familiar with it. 

EDIT: This might get things rolling for you.

EDIT2: Actually, it might not be the radeonhd driver at all - It might be the radeon/ati driver. No driver is specified in my xorg, so I had only assumed that it was radeonhd since it had been updated. According to the DRI wiki, "Radeon X2000 - X4870: Initial experimental 3D support is available by the free driver r600, and is rapidly improving in the Mesa master branch."


----------



## ToeClaws (May 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Well, I'm not sure what you'd need to do there. The 1.3.0 radeonhd driver dropped around October of 2009, so I'm not terribly sure what you might have to do to get it, if anything. Had I just gone Gentoo again, I'd probably be a lot more familiar with it.
> 
> EDIT: This might get things rolling for you.
> 
> EDIT2: Actually, it might not be the radeonhd driver at all - It might be the radeon/ati driver. No driver is specified in my xorg, so I had only assumed that it was radeonhd since it had been updated. According to the DRI wiki, "Radeon X2000 - X4870: Initial experimental 3D support is available by the free driver r600, and is rapidly improving in the Mesa master branch."



Meh - well I'd rather wait until it's just a package, otherwise you run into the issue of having to rebuild the driver every time a kernel update is handed down.  Not hard, but... too much of a hassle.  On the upside though, Mint 9 is just around the corner.


----------



## net-cat (May 10, 2010)

At the moment I've got a GeForce 9800 GX2 running with the binary blob in Ubuntu 10.04. It works and it's probably not worth plugging my old Radeon HD 2600 in to test...


----------



## Riv (Jun 10, 2010)

Linux. I have very little experience with Linux or Windows, but I do play with Ubuntu from time to time and find it much nicer than windows. Besides, ever since Microsoft tried to kill openGL I've lost all respect for them. Those anticompetitive, open-source-hating, idiots (geniuses?) set back mac and Linux gaming by years, not to mention the detrimental effects that their actions had on openGL support in card drivers. 

And really... a _fully_ proprietary OS? What a progress damper. At least Apple is cool enough to run an open-source UNIX core, and support open-source tech (like openGL, openCL, and webkit) even if the higher-level API's are proprietary.


----------



## Rockerkitsune (Jul 18, 2010)

I prefer Windows and Mac,because one time i tried Linux Ubuntu 9.10 i gave up. It's too hard to do anything on it.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 18, 2010)

Rockerwolf said:


> I prefer Windows and Mac,because one time i tried Linux Ubuntu 9.10 i gave up. It's too hard to do anything on it.


 
Sounds like Windows 7 will be a right disaster for you, then.  Don't laugh; there's an active thread in R&R about that very thing.

In what ways was Ubuntu too hard to use?


----------



## Rockerkitsune (Jul 18, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Sounds like Windows 7 will be a right disaster for you, then.  Don't laugh; there's an active thread in R&R about that very thing.
> 
> In what ways was Ubuntu too hard to use?


 
Couldn't figure out stuff like what they meant by run /emerald, or the like.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 18, 2010)

Rockerwolf said:


> Couldn't figure out stuff like what they meant by run /emerald, or the like.


 
That's alien to me, and I use Ubuntu every day.  Emerald is an alternative theme manager for compiz-fusion, the program which provides desktop effects (like wobbly windows) for Ubuntu.  I've never had usability problems with Emerald, but I've never encountered instructions beyond using the normal menu system to use it, either.

Just out of curiosity, who's "they"?


----------



## Rockerkitsune (Jul 18, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That's alien to me, and I use Ubuntu every day.  Emerald is an alternative theme manager for compiz-fusion, the program which provides desktop effects (like wobbly windows) for Ubuntu.  I've never had usability problems with Emerald, but I've never encountered instructions beyond using the normal menu system to use it, either.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, who's "they"?



I mean right here.

http://emerald.modularsystems.sl/downloads.shtml


----------



## Riv (Jul 18, 2010)

Rockerwolf said:


> I mean right here.
> 
> http://emerald.modularsystems.sl/downloads.shtml


 
Oh, they probably meant for you to cd to the directory that had the emerald script in it, then run ./emerald, to launch it. It's terminal language and it definitely takes some getting used to it, but it's pretty powerful.

I mostly don't use Linux due to my experience with drivers, getting the wireless to work on my macbook took six hours, even though the proprietary-broadcom-driver-setup-thingie said it could get the drivers automatically. It seems to work out-of-box in Lucid, though, so maybe I'll give Ubuntu another shot.


----------



## Kygoski~ (Jul 22, 2010)

Personally, I use Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, and it's been amazing for me. I just keep Windows XP Home on Virtualbox just in case :3


----------



## Runefox (Jul 22, 2010)

Rockerwolf said:


> I mean right here.
> 
> http://emerald.modularsystems.sl/downloads.shtml



Oh. Shakily-supported third-party Second Life viewer. Yeah, they'd need you to do console stuff with that, seeing as how they're clearly not putting in the effort to do a proper package. But that isn't really very intensive. In fact, you probably could have just navigated to the folder and run the program from there without the console.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Sep 28, 2010)

I like both.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Sep 28, 2010)

Same here


----------



## shaaaark (Oct 24, 2010)

Just recently, I made the switch from Windows 7 to Ubuntu. I'm not disappointed with the decision in any way EXCEPT I'm having iTunes withdrawal. I'll get that sorted soon, though.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 25, 2010)

shaaaark said:


> Just recently, I made the switch from Windows 7 to Ubuntu. I'm not disappointed with the decision in any way EXCEPT I'm having iTunes withdrawal. I'll get that sorted soon, though.


 
Congratulations!  You could try and see if iTunes runs under WINE if you really miss it.  There are some nice library-type players in Ubuntu if you really like the library function.  If not, there's a great basic player called Deadb33f.


----------



## shaaaark (Oct 25, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Congratulations!  You could try and see if iTunes runs under WINE if you really miss it.  There are some nice library-type players in Ubuntu if you really like the library function.  If not, there's a great basic player called Deadb33f.


 Well, I'm at least glad that Banshee allows me to sync my iPhone. I've been trying to get iTunes to run in WINE, but haven't had any success. I might just do without and, eventually, I'll forget about iTunes.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 25, 2010)

shaaaark said:


> Well, I'm at least glad that Banshee allows me to sync my iPhone. I've been trying to get iTunes to run in WINE, but haven't had any success. I might just do without and, eventually, I'll forget about iTunes.


 
Probably best in the end.  I tried (at a good friend's constant urging) to use iTunes, but I just want a music player to play music and apart from a playlist, I don't need any other features, so to me iTunes was massive and bloated.  Even if a library and integrated store sorta thing is what you like, iTunes is proprietary and closed-source.

Oh, if you haven't already gotten this from another of the *nix posts, I highly recommend Ubuntu-Tweak: 

http://ubuntu-tweak.com/downloads/

It has a bunch of repositories that you can add which include (among many other things) media programs.


----------



## shaaaark (Oct 25, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Probably best in the end.  I tried (at a good friend's constant urging) to use iTunes, but I just want a music player to play music and apart from a playlist, I don't need any other features, so to me iTunes was massive and bloated.  Even if a library and integrated store sorta thing is what you like, iTunes is proprietary and closed-source.
> 
> Oh, if you haven't already gotten this from another of the *nix posts, I highly recommend Ubuntu-Tweak:
> 
> ...


 Thanks for the lookin' out. I've considered myself to be a tech nerd, but primarily on Windows. Using Linux full-time is a new experience for me, so I appreciate the heads up.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2010)

Linux is better and you get a free harley :V


----------



## ukbeast (Jan 17, 2011)

Well Windows have their own song!
[video=youtube;D3-vBBQKOYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3-vBBQKOYU[/video]


----------



## Scamp3rs (Apr 2, 2011)

Windows is good if you are really used to it, i never used a mac except a couple of times in a computer store, combined with the fact that me and my friends have been trying to circumvent the restrictions on school computers since grade 5 or 6.
So me and my friend Georgio pretty much know windows inside and out.
There is one guy i know who has Linux, i call him a penguin.


----------



## sirius)(black (Apr 5, 2011)

if you're able to use it properly and you're not a games/windows application user(as in, if you can live without them, or with them running slower than on windows) you'll want linux, i have dual boot, but rarely use linux, because i use tons of windows applications(usually simultaneously)


----------



## Garfang (Apr 7, 2011)

yeah if you are gamer or window application user you usually go with Windows , Linux is more for programming and networking.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 7, 2011)

Garfang said:


> yeah if you are gamer or window application user you usually go with Windows , Linux is more for programming and networking.


 That's a bit of a misconception. Modern Linux desktops actually have more in common with Mac OS, with snazzy interfaces and cool visual effects. They're much more geared towards the casual users, people who want to browse the web and generally use their computer as most people do. Some games are compatible via Wine (Source engine games come to mind), and the multimedia capabilities of Linux are actually very good nowadays. It's a great alternative to Windows without paying the Apple Tax.


----------



## sirius)(black (Apr 8, 2011)

Runefox said:


> That's a bit of a misconception. Modern Linux desktops actually have more in common with Mac OS, with snazzy interfaces and cool visual effects. They're much more geared towards the casual users, people who want to browse the web and generally use their computer as most people do. Some games are compatible via Wine (Source engine games come to mind), and the multimedia capabilities of Linux are actually very good nowadays. It's a great alternative to Windows without paying the Apple Tax.


well, i think it rather gives you the option, you can turn all those flashy extras off and still use the same OS as a programming environment that can run 24/7 without any problems, and it has more effective memory/cpu usage than both windows and mac(the latter i can only guess because i've never used mac OS)

also, wine is by default less efficient than native windows, because you're basically using a partial virtual machine to run a windows application, which means you get the overhead of the VM which can be quite a performance/functionality drain,
for example, 
i tried playing an MMO on wine on my server, 
framerate is only about 75% of that on native windows, 
if you run 2 clients, the hard drive goes crazy as it's constantly using the swap space for memory, and after a few days of running single-client it just dies(memory slowly leaks iguess) and you have to reboot, at least that's how it went for me
also, in wine the 3d engine bugs out, causing all sorts of render faults, which means some triangles get rendered connected to the world origin, instead of just staying in the mesh

it has gotten better in this version, an old version i used had those render faults in EVERY mesh, this version only has 1 or 2 meshes in view that bug out

at any rate, wine is still not exactly suited for MMO-gaming,
apart from that, all applications on linux are user-built, so if users start using more and more multimedia, you can expect multimedia apps to show up and improve faster than others, as is the case with any genre of application


----------



## Maszrum (Apr 13, 2011)

Windows. Only. Never used Linux. And don't plan to. Sure maybe it's super duper cool but I like to be able to run any kind of program and game I want. And Windows allows that. Sure Microsoft sucks balls but I never had big enough problems with Windows to want to change it. Simple- if something works for me why to go through the hassle to get something else?


----------



## coyote_hacker (Apr 5, 2012)

I prefer linux for hacking, and windows is better for gaming. Still, I'd rather take linux any day.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 6, 2012)

Windows, always Windows. Wins7 for the win.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 6, 2012)

Both linux and windows.


----------



## I Am That Is (Apr 7, 2012)

Doesn't matter to me. Got a 12 core Mac pro triple bootcamped with Ubuntu windows 7 and Mac lion. I noticed that windows slowly chomps on your HDD space. Started with a 100gb partition, now at 40 gigs, almost nothing installed.


----------



## Pike (Jul 12, 2012)

I used Linux exclusively on all my computers from 2005 until about 2011.  It's a solid, stable operating system and in the last six years it's gone from "needing some tech expertise to run well" to "needing little to no tech expertise to run well", especially if you're using an Ubuntu variant.

Whilst I got a variety of games to run well under Linux with Wine (World of Warcraft, Civ IV, Starcraft 2, SimCity 4, to name a few), and several games also run natively under Linux (Minecraft, SMAC, etc.) ultimately I switched to Windows 7 last year because I was starting to do even more gaming and there are still some games that Wine will not run.  I maintain that Linux is the better operating system overall-- it is much more stable, doesn't crash like Windows does, and is easy to use-- however if you do a LOT of gaming, then Windows 7 is your better choice.  And honestly it's probably the best thing Microsoft has done in a while.

I still use Linux on my laptop and when I'm not going to be gaming for a while.


----------



## WhiteSuburban (Jul 12, 2012)

I use Windows 7, 64-bit. As Pike suggested, Windows is the goto for gaming.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Linux is better and you get a free harley :V



And a high-paying job if you learn to use it well


----------



## BarlettaX (Jul 13, 2012)

Linux is good if you want a desktop HAL9000. If you want a sane OS, use windows.


----------



## kayfox (Jul 13, 2012)

BarlettaX said:


> Linux is good if you want a desktop HAL9000. If you want a sane OS, use windows.



Your comment makes no sense.  Explain your conclusions?


----------



## BarlettaX (Jul 13, 2012)

kayfox said:


> Your comment makes no sense.  Explain your conclusions?



It was a part joke, part opinion post. Do you even get the reference?


----------



## EllieTheFuzzy (Dec 15, 2012)

Windows 7 Here and will be for the next 10 years (Or Vista, And yes i've used a bad and good vista xD) unless Windows 9/Blue (apparently or something) blows me away or something like that, Don't like the look of windows 8 and I've tried Linux and i Hated it, (Always handy to have a computer kicking about so incase you need to convert your file type)


----------



## ToeClaws (Dec 17, 2012)

zashko said:


> ... and I've tried Linux and i Hated it



Which one - there's over 300 over them?  If you like Windows 7 (task centric work environment) I would suggest trying a Linux that uses a similar environment such as Mint.  If you did do that, then please ignore. ^^;


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 17, 2012)

zashko said:


> Windows 7 Here and will be for the next 10 years (Or Vista, And yes i've used a bad and good vista xD) unless Windows 9/Blue (apparently or something) blows me away or something like that, Don't like the look of windows 8 and I've tried Linux and i Hated it, (Always handy to have a computer kicking about so incase you need to convert your file type)



Seconding the request to specify which distribution ("distro") of Linux you tried.

On that note, I've become very displeased with the way Ubuntu is going.  Unity desktop environment, adopting a Skunkworks development mode in response to calls for greater developmental transparency, a Windows-like invasion of privacy that's on by default, and a few other gripes that I'm sure to remember when I use it again...  It's sort of like Mark Shuttleworth got a second-hand high from whatever Steve Ballmer was smoking when he okayed Windows 8.  I started disliking it with 11.04, but 12.10 was the last straw.  I'm done with Ubuntu as a distro to recommend.

Linux Mint is looking pretty good as an introductory desktop distro, and when I checked DistroWatch earlier today, Mint was listed ahead of Ubuntu as the most popular distro.


----------



## EllieTheFuzzy (Dec 17, 2012)

ToeClaws said:


> Which one - there's over 300 over them?  If you like Windows 7 (task centric work environment) I would suggest trying a Linux that uses a similar environment such as Mint.  If you did do that, then please ignore. ^^;



Ubuntu 12.04 I think? XD dunno if they are the same but the irratation of using the OS I had just turned me away permanently from any other OS, But im the type that just wants to click and start up a program rather than a bunch of BS being flung at me like the linux i had did.

I've gotten frustrated at windows before but not as with that ubuntu/linux, *Used a crappy Vista and the Dreadded crashmaster of Windows ME*

I can see that People love linux for running servers though, If you can get it to run it i guess it'll just chug along smoothly

But then again i can see maybe why i hated linux because i've been a lifetime user of windows, 98,2000,ME,XP,Vista,7 Never tried a mac though i've seen the ones in my old collage, Did look neat though.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 17, 2012)

zashko said:


> Ubuntu 12.04 I think? XD dunno if they are the same but the irratation of using the OS I had just turned me away permanently from any other OS, But im the type that just wants to click and start up a program rather than a bunch of BS being flung at me like the linux i had did.
> 
> I've gotten frustrated at windows before but not as with that ubuntu/linux, *Used a crappy Vista and the Dreadded crashmaster of Windows ME*
> 
> ...



I got the impression from both experiencing it myself and watching other people use it, that Mint is one of those "it just plain works" type of operating systems; nothing really at all to tweak after installing it, except maybe the desktop wallpaper image.  (Mind you, this is the main flavor choice, "Mate," that so let me get down to business right away.  I haven't tried the others yet.)  Believe it or not, Ubuntu was awfully close to being that good out-of-box once upon a time.  If you're still willing to see what Linux is about, try giving Mint a spin.


----------



## EllieTheFuzzy (Dec 17, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> I got the impression from both experiencing it myself and watching other people use it, that Mint is one of those "it just plain works" type of operating systems; nothing really at all to tweak after installing it, except maybe the desktop wallpaper image.  (Mind you, this is the main flavor choice, "Mate," that so let me get down to business right away.  I haven't tried the others yet.)  Believe it or not, Ubuntu was awfully close to being that good out-of-box once upon a time.  If you're still willing to see what Linux is about, try giving Mint a spin.



I could give it a shot, I've got an old HP having it's time spent doing nothing that i could pick up and use it to run a gaming server off it, Though how is mint for CPU usage since the old HP's cpu sucks bad.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2012)

zashko said:


> I could give it a shot, I've got an old HP having it's time spent doing nothing that i could pick up and use it to run a gaming server off it, Though how is mint for CPU usage since the old HP's cpu sucks bad.



On par with Windows or a little better, from my experience.  Granted, I haven't used it on any CPUs slower than 2 GHz, so I can't vouch for anything like P4s or the like.  There's really no way to tell without trying it out.

The good thing is that the live desktop on the DVD lets you try it without having to install anything, but the bad thing is that DVD access is at times painfully slow even on a brand new PC, and that will make any OS, Linux or Windows, slow or even unresponsive for a moment while the disk spins up and reads.

(As an aside, my live Windows desktop on CD experience comes from creating BartPE and UBCD4Win disks from a Windows XP system about four years ago.)


----------



## ToeClaws (Dec 18, 2012)

@Zashko; Ahhh... seconded on ArielMT's comments - Ubuntu has gone the way of teh-dumb thanks to the Unity interface and other odd ball tweaks.  Mint is definitely the most well thought out of the major distributions, and is what I use personally as well.  If trying it on an older machine, there is something to consider.  Mint is available in four main flavours - Cinnamon, MATE, XFCE and KDE.  Each is a different type of shell, all of which are task-centric type shells (like Windows 7/Vista/XP).  For an older machine, especially if it's graphics card isn't so hot, I would suggest MATE (which is a fork of the older Gnome 2.2 shell) or XFCE.  Both of those shells are lighter on resources and work well with old hardware.  Cinnamon is the flagship shell and tends to work best on newer hardware (albeit the latest release does have support for no OpenGL, but I've not had a chance to test if that's good or not yet on old hardware).  KDE is a very fancy shell, but tends to be a shell you either really like or really hate; either way it's one that requires a lot of resources.


----------



## JerryFoxcoon (Apr 14, 2013)

I progressively switched from Windows 7 to Zorin OS (Ubuntu-based) last year. I tried Linux Mint but I've had freezes and some bugs so I gave Zorin OS a try. Funny thing is... I gave my 2010 Acer computer to my mom and upgraded a 2004 IBM ThinkCentre M51 to give it a new life. The only thing I need is a new graphics card, since graphics are a little slow with the built-in Intel GMA900 chipset. I'm still surprised by the boot time, even if I've installed a bunch of programs and transferred 60GB worth of personal data. It's a little slower than a fresh installation but definitely much faster than a Windows installation of same age!

I found open-source alternatives to most of my programs, but I still plan to repair a Windows XP NetVista computer and keep it as a 2nd PC for specific software (mainly games, video editing program and my Happauge WinTV analog-IN card).

One thing I like with Linux is the error management. Windows has improved on that point but it still doesn't beat Linux. My Zorin OS never crashed. I did have some issues, such as the Intel chipset not able to read screen EDID. But I've been able to manually set the resolution to 1680X1050@60Hz (what my screen can handle) with no problems. I also like the fact that Linux can display video file thumbnails for all but one codec, even older ones Win 7 wasn't showing anymore.


----------



## Saiko (Apr 14, 2013)

I myself set up a Win7 / Mint 14 KDE dual boot on my G75 a few weeks ago, and every time I use that machine, I use Mint. xD

Programming in Linux is sooooo much easier now that I don't have all those godforsaken .dll files. And holy fuck pager <3333


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 15, 2013)

I haven't stopped using Ubuntu since I installed it. There's a few issues but there's always an easy solution for these on Google/Ubuntu sources. Also terminal, Linux godsend 

#linux4life


----------



## Ranguvar (Apr 15, 2013)

Windows 8


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 15, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> Windows 8



Any particular reasons?  I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Ranguvar (Apr 15, 2013)

ArielMT said:


> Any particular reasons?  I'm genuinely curious.


I put together a new computer last October and I just decided to go with the latest version. It boot quicker, I like the UI (yes even the start screen), and I glad they got rid of that tacky aero theme. I haven't had any crashes or driver failures either. The search function also works better, its faster and more accurate. Microsoft also added to some shortcuts for basic functions, so even with the slightly cumbersome charms bars and shit, I can still do basic commands as quick or quicker than I did in 7. The revisions to the explorer are also nice (I like the ribbon, some people hate it). I ain't a power user and I don't code or program but for derping around, using office, and playing games I like it better than Windows 7.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 15, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> I put together a new computer last October and I just decided to go with the latest version. It boot quicker, I like the UI (yes even the start screen), and I glad they got rid of that tacky aero theme. I haven't had any crashes or driver failures either. The search function also works better, its faster and more accurate. Microsoft also added to some shortcuts for basic functions, so even with the slightly cumbersome charms bars and shit, I can still do basic commands as quick or quicker than I did in 7. The revisions to the explorer are also nice (I like the ribbon, some people hate it). I ain't a power user and I don't code or program but for derping around, using office, and playing games I like it better than Windows 7.



Have you tried Windows8 Skype yet? Or custom changing the background of the Start screen? =P


----------



## Runefox (Apr 15, 2013)

ArielMT said:


> Any particular reasons?  I'm genuinely curious.


I've been using it myself on my desktop and on my MacBook's Parallels VM. Originally, it was to force myself to acclimatize for the purpose of supporting Windows 8 clients at work, but I've found that, like most revisions of Windows, things are again simply moved around. If you think of the Start screen as a full-screen Start menu and use the search function, it makes life a lot easier.

On the desktop side of things, multi-mon is far more elegant, with the option to include taskbars on each monitor containing the programs that are open on it. The Start screen can be launched on any monitor while leaving the other(s) unobstructed (though it doesn't stay open if you click outside it). The new Explorer interface is neat, too, with the hidden files option available as a toggle without having to dive into the folder options menu, plus a new Content view that's basically a higher-DPI Details view, and better sorting options. Common administrative tasks are available by right-clicking the lower left corner of the screen, including administrative command prompt, computer management, programs and features, event viewer, device manager, and even the run dialogue (if you're adverse to just using Win+R).

Overall I almost prefer it to 7 at this point.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Apr 16, 2013)

Runefox said:


> I've been using it myself on my desktop and on my MacBook's Parallels VM. Originally, it was to force myself to acclimatize for the purpose of supporting Windows 8 clients at work, but I've found that, like most revisions of Windows, things are again simply moved around. If you think of the Start screen as a full-screen Start menu and use the search function, it makes life a lot easier.
> 
> On the desktop side of things, multi-mon is far more elegant, with the option to include taskbars on each monitor containing the programs that are open on it. The Start screen can be launched on any monitor while leaving the other(s) unobstructed (though it doesn't stay open if you click outside it). The new Explorer interface is neat, too, with the hidden files option available as a toggle without having to dive into the folder options menu, plus a new Content view that's basically a higher-DPI Details view, and better sorting options. Common administrative tasks are available by right-clicking the lower left corner of the screen, including administrative command prompt, computer management, programs and features, event viewer, device manager, and even the run dialogue (if you're adverse to just using Win+R).
> 
> Overall I almost prefer it to 7 at this point.



Pretty much agree with the above. Also, it is insanely fast on UEFI systems on boot.

For those of you, who would like to run Modern/Metro apps in a window? For $5, StarDock has you covered.

And I'm slightly excited about "Blue" too. Curious to see what all it'll bring.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 16, 2013)

Sai_Wolf said:


> Pretty much agree with the above. Also, it is insanely fast on UEFI systems on boot.
> 
> For those of you, who would like to run Modern/Metro apps in a window? For $5, StarDock has you covered.
> 
> And I'm slightly excited about "Blue" too. Curious to see what all it'll bring.


It's even faster with an SSD - My Parallels VM boots in 8 seconds flat with a Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Desktop takes significantly longer though thanks to its RAID BIOS.

StarDock came up with something rather brilliant there, something I might have to pick up. I notice they created a tool to customize the Start Screen background, too - Too bad this isn't something you can do on your own. That said, with the grainy, letterboxed pictures most people seem to use as backgrounds on their PC's, I'm not sure I can blame Microsoft for wanting to preserve the appearance of their shiny new feature.

As for Blue... I've seen bits and pieces about it, but most things seem to be more or less the same so far. It seems like Microsoft is moving towards a more rapid development cycle, focusing more on evolution of this formula than on introducing a ton of new features. I wonder how it will tie into the Windows Azure concept, and whether or not MSFT will move to Windows as a service like they have for Office.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Apr 27, 2013)

Runefox said:


> It's even faster with an SSD - My Parallels VM boots in 8 seconds flat with a Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Desktop takes significantly longer though thanks to its RAID BIOS.
> 
> StarDock came up with something rather brilliant there, something I might have to pick up. I notice they created a tool to customize the Start Screen background, too - Too bad this isn't something you can do on your own. That said, with the grainy, letterboxed pictures most people seem to use as backgrounds on their PC's, I'm not sure I can blame Microsoft for wanting to preserve the appearance of their shiny new feature.
> 
> As for Blue... I've seen bits and pieces about it, but most things seem to be more or less the same so far. It seems like Microsoft is moving towards a more rapid development cycle, focusing more on evolution of this formula than on introducing a ton of new features. I wonder how it will tie into the Windows Azure concept, and whether or not MSFT will move to Windows as a service like they have for Office.



The only little issue I've seen with ModernMix is, in some Modern apps, the mouse will go a bit haywire or 'drift'. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that you're resizing an app that thinks it's in fullscreen. So far, the only app that exhibits this behavior consistently is Fresh Paint.

I'd love to get an SSD, but for now, I'll have to stick with this 2TB of mine. I just wish there was a way to expose UEFI in Windows. (The Linux Kernel makes this stupidly easy in conjunction with efibootmgr)


----------



## Hooky (Aug 10, 2014)

net-cat said:


> http://wubi-installer.org/
> 
> ^ Try Ubuntu. If you like it, install it for real.


Why not Mint? It's derived from Ubuntu, doesn't send your data to Amazon and has a nice approach to design.


----------



## Weston Wolf (Aug 10, 2014)

Windows is a hail of a lot better, But I would use Windows 7 its the best overall.


----------



## Baud (Aug 12, 2014)

It depends on what you have to do:
On Windows you can work very well with softwares like Sony Vegas and the entire Adobe Suite (After Effect, Premiere etc...) if you're into this kind of work.
Linux is a bit more difficult, you have to use the terminal for a lot of things that Windows can do automatically, but I recommend it if you're a developer like me, or just a "computer nerd" (no it's not an insult).

Obviously if you like play games Windows is the better choice.
Also, Linux has a software called "Wine" which can execute some Windows programs in .exe or .com extension.


----------



## MegaMew (Nov 13, 2014)

I'd say Linux if I wasn't a gamer. But sadly, that's the case, so windows. I mean I tried Ubuntu for awhile, and it was great and all, but I miss my games.


----------



## ---Storm--- (Nov 24, 2014)

For many years I was held back from ditching Windows in favor of Linux because I simply didn't find a distro that met my expectations. Used Ubunto on my laptop for a while but it was ridiculously buggy and unstable, even more so than Windows 7, and even if I managed to make it work with lot of hard work it completely broke upon every big upgrade.

Also, I was heavily dependent on some Windows-only programs like the Adobe family, MS office, and all my games were Windows only.

Finally a friend suggested Arch Linux. I gave it a try with a dual booted system but my programs and games still marooned me to Windows. Then over about a year, I found suitable Linux alternatives for all my programs except Photoshop, and made quite some of my games work under Linux using Wine, when finally Steam for Linux was presented by Valve.

Then MS announced Windows 8... and I knew I don't want to use Windows ever again in my life.  Moved to Arch + KDE.

Never looked back since.

As of today, I use open source Linux, or cross-platform applications for pretty much anything: Krita for digital painting, Libre Office for office stuff, Blender for 3D modelling and so on. A great number of my games are now available natively for Linux via Steam for Linux, including Half Life 2, Dota 2, Borderladns 2, Witcher 2, Portal 1-2, Star Conflict, Trine 1-2, World of Goo, Bastion, Mount & Blade: Warband, Civilization V, X3 and more. Also I made most of my other games work pretty well, or at least acceptable with Wine, including Oblivion, Skyrim, Borderlands, Fallout 3, Deus Ex. Human revolution, STALKER 1-3, Rome: Total War and more.

As of now, there is only ONE problem I have, which is Photoshop, that runs perfectly (CS 5.1) under Wine with only one, but a serious exception: No tablet pressure.

But since I do my digital painting with Krita, I will rarely if ever need Photoshop, and even when I do it will be for generic editing where I do not need tablet pressure.


----------



## Nyor (Feb 14, 2015)

I prefer Windows 7 because I play games otherwise I would probably install Linux not sure what Distro it would be though. Also I might upgrade to windows 10 whenever it comes out since windows 7 isn't going to have support for Direct X 12.


----------



## Biochemiphy (Apr 3, 2015)

I use Windows. c:


----------



## mercuryalsatian (Apr 16, 2015)

I use linux and it is great. it is fast and doesn't blue screen when i plug a mouse in. Linux mint is best.


----------



## NIGHTWOLF-SLYFOX (Apr 24, 2015)

Windows


----------



## DarkXander (Jun 13, 2015)

VMware ESXi 5.5 for my mainframe systems
Custom Compiled CentOS VMs for all the web services and Database Hosts
PFsense BSD based unix Firewall VMs as gatekeepers to all VMs and the VMware Administrative Consoles
All solid state disks period.

Thats what runs FurrTrax.com

As for my own personal usage:
My Main PC houses a 1TB RAID System and 3 way SLI with GTX 285s and a Six Core overclocked to 4.5 GHZ on Custom Watercooling
Running Tri-Boot Windows XP x64 (because some programs dont like Win7)
CentOS X64
and Win7 Pro X64 as primary.

On my laptop i have XP X64 at the moment since i havent bothered to upgrade it yet, its an I5 Quad Core with 8 GB and Radeon HD 7700 Dedicated Graphics, an MSI Barebone.

I also have a 32GB SD card installed with CentOS X64 for the laptop.

Im a Network Engineer by day.


----------

