Windows Only Users: Will you ever change to Linux?

I've been trying to make the leap

I don't really have a linux/unix/programming
background
I'm just adequate at DOS

so Line command prompt is something new
Taking the time to learn and find the
drivers etc . . .

Moving to Linux will take alot of effort IMO
for me anyway. . I'm moving slowly

What are the benefits of moving to Linux?

Rocket River

------------------

 

I'll use any operating system that has timely software support and tons of software for it. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought a Mac. I wouldn't mind buying one, but for work and play, I'd much rather have a PC. If Linux gets that kind of support, I don't mind learning it one bit, but until then, it's a "neat thing to have" on my secondary boot partition.

Heck, they've even made Solaris free for public use (even though "free" somehow turns into $75), but I have no reason to switch to it because I like the support Windows gets just fine.

It'll be difficult for Linux to get a foothold in the Windows community until they get their interface shaped up. The average Windows user finds KDE, GNOME, etc. more difficult to use than Windows. I like the way things are going with Linux, though, and wouldn't mind using it a bit.

------------------
Yugo grills, Yugo mills, Check out the oil my Yugo spills...

 

I don't plan on switching unless the OS is compatible with all the software that I already have. I also want the ability to go and purchase a game or an application and readily find a version compatible with that OS. The real benefit of the Microsoft hegemony / domination of the OS market is that you don't have to worry about compatibility issues, and software developers don't need to program for different platforms.

I have friends who use Linux or Be, and rave about the stability of those OSes. But to me, the software compatibility issues outweigh any advantages I might get by switching (I use Win98 currently).

------------------
I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.

 

I agree
The only place Linux seems to be superior
is Network management. If you not doing that
It's not all that . . .

I would like to be a Network guy
but . . . it will take some time

Rocket River
For everyday use Windows is the drug of choice

------------------

 

I will never be able to switch over however soon I hope to have a 2nd computer set up just running linux.

------------------
~John~
Help keep the obsessed thread alive post the reasons why you are an obsessed Rockets fan by clicking here

 

I don't put a lot of time into worrying about my OS.

Just keep it simple and all the apps have to work.

Windows does that....

DaDakota

------------------
If you like RTS games, check out this one.

www.frontierwars.com

coming soon to a PC near you.

 

Linux when configured correctly is far more stable than Windows. There are several Linux boxes that have not had to reboot for years. Try going a few days or weeks on Windows machines without a crash, BSOD, or resources getting eaten up.

Linux is far more secure than Winblowz 95/98/Moi and possibly NT and 2000 as well.

There's also the thing where Linux is free!!

------------------
Yugo grills, Yugo mills, Check out the oil my Yugo spills...

 

My problem with Linux is that it does not have the software lineup that Windows has. Same thing with Mac. If one of those had every title on the store shelf, I would go with it, 'til then Windows suits me ust fine.

I have run my computer with Win95 for months at a time. I have a friend at school who moved into the dorms and did not turn his off for about half a year with no problems. I think many of the "problems" with Windows are propaganda againts the guy on top. If it is such an inferior product, how come no one can seem to bring it down, even when they are offering their OS for free?

------------------
"Of course, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong" -- Dennis Miller

 

Mango and others,

Software programs are not the only consideration. Many times the latest hardware components are not supported by linux either since manufacturers often times refuse to make linux versions of their drivers. I am still open to unix, but I am satisfied with windows because for the most part I only use my computer to play games and to browse the internet, which windows accomplishes fine.

------------------
I am an invisible man.

 

This is the essence of the Microsoft monopoly trial case. If you want, start another thread and I'm sure we can discuss this. The answer is actually pretty simple and I see it happening in corporations all the time. Simply put, the best product doesn't necessarily win; the best-marketed one often does.

Regarding the statement about Windows running for months, you must be one of the very few. There was a bug in early Windows releases that caused it to crash after 40-something days of continuous use without rebooting. The joke was that it wasn't that big a bug since nobody's ever seen Windows stay up that long without crashing.

------------------
Yugo grills, Yugo mills, Check out the oil my Yugo spills...

 

i would go to Linux if they made it compatiable to everything... It is so much better know, but i am not that into programming, computer, etc

------------------

 

The Linux community has been working to make their operating system more mainstream and to take market share from Microsoft.

The vast majority of desktops (home & office) are running some Windows variant. Linux usage among the CC BBS population is still probably on the low side, so that makes it an ideal environment to pose this query. If you spend perhaps half of your computer time in a browser, does the underlying OS matter to you?

Linux Goals:

1. Ease of use
2. Fairly consistent desktop look and feel.
3. Be able to run many applications already written for Windows
4. A wide array of programs to use.

Suppose Linux has all of the above covered and then it boils down to the question of making the jump from the name Microsoft to a newer and smaller company.

Will you be open-minded to using an operating system other than one provided by Bill Gates?

If you are already a hard-core Linux user, the above questions are not directed at you.


Mango

------------------
Get it right or just don't do it!
Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated.

 

Well, I've been waiting to post on this one, but now I have time:

I use Linux. I love Linux. Linux is not for most people . . . yet

Personally, I'm a bit annoyed at the whole Linux/Open Source community right now. Linux has lots of ups, but plenty of downs as well.

Hardware support sucks ass. There's no other way to say it than that. Sure, it's possible, and not THAT hard to find drivers for some of your hardware, but recompiling your kernel is a pain in the ass sometimes.

Linux games suck . . . even the ones ported by Loki, because your hardware won't work well enough to make them good.

Linux stability is awesome -- no complaints here . . .

Linux programs are very annoying right now. The Open Source movement prides itself on developing faster and better. But right now I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a bunch of 0.7 and 0.8 releases. And they're worse than their windows counterparts (mostly). The programs I'm talkin' about are things like Abiword, Gnumeric (which is cool), Mozilla, Evolution. These are supposed to be the "killer" consumer apps . . . but compared to their Windows counterparts - THEY SUCK!!

I'm just a bit angered at the whole thing . . . whoopdeefreakin'doo, Abiword 0.7.14 came out today . . . it still crashed. And I submit bug reports and stuff.

The Linux community has a sense of independence . . . if you need something, there is a "program it yourself" kindof arrogance. It's good if you program a lot, or have time to, but not if you're not really a coder.

That said, I like Linux. I like the community, I like the features, I like the COMMAND LINE, I like its nuances and quirks. It's something I love being a part of. But it can be SO DAMNED FRUSTRATIN SOMETIMES!!!

I'm typing this in Windows BTW . . . I have to do a project for class in MS Excel.

------------------
"Up and down, inside out, outside in, some you lose some you win"
-- DMB -> "Sweet Up and Down"

 

I wouldn't.

I don't want to worry about the operating system -- I don't want to mess with it, or even think about it. My computer came loaded with Windows 98, and I have no intention of changing until I get a new computer. It works well, doesn't have conflicts, and I can buy pretty much any application or game I want. I'm also very familliar/comfortable with it, and don't want to spend time learning a new OS.

I am dependent on the applications -- for work, and play. I don't want to have to worry about whether they run or not, or be limited in what I can buy.

As far as free goes -- Windows is essentially free. Yes, if you want to upgrade, it costs. But, you'ld be hard pressed to find a computer package that wasn't already loaded with it. (Mac's excluded ) Most people won't ever upgrade until they get a new computer.

Shoot -- I'd be content running Windows 3.1 if it could run current applications. It was fast, reliable, and took up very little disk space by todays standards. It did what I needed it to do.



------------------
Stay Cool...

 

"As far as free goes -- Windows is essentially free. "

Microsoft charges PC manufacturers for every copy of Windows they preinstall. So the PC manufacturer includes the cost of Windows in its machines. It's like saying "All PCs come with CD-ROM drives, most people don't upgrade their CD-ROM drives, so CD-ROM drives are essentially free."

Windows is NOT free. I bet PC manufacturers are paying more for each copy of Windows than they pay for a CD-ROM drive, a floppy drive, a keyboard/mouse, a set of speakers, or a sound card.

Microsoft used to (still does?) charge PC manufacturers for a Windows license for every machine manufactured, regardless of what OS was pre-installed. So everybody had to pay for Windows, even if they didn't get it installed.

On a related note, Microsoft rewards PC manufacturers for reporting on customers who buy large quantities Windows-free PCs. Micros~1 can't believe anyone might actually wanna run another OS, so they figure anybody buying Windows-free systems must be using fraudulent copies of Windows. (even though google runs on 8,000 Linux boxes).

[This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited May 02, 2001).]

 

Well, that explains its speed I guess.

------------------
My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried?

 

Wow . . . a fellow /.er

MS is also looking to change its licensing to a fee-based subscription service. That is really lame. It's not 100% implemented in the new Windows XP (is that what it's called?), but it'll be in future software as well.

Imagine paying $200 per year to use MS Office. The damn thing had better NEVER CRASH on me for that price.

------------------
"Up and down, inside out, outside in, some you lose some you win"
-- DMB -> "Sweet Up and Down"

 

I find I like Windows quite a lot for my home system. At work, I hate it. That's probably the Dell configuration that drives me crazy.

Anyway, I'm not switching until Apple licenses the MacOS.

 

Exactly. The cost is figured into the price of the box.

Given the way component prices are dropping, in another year you'll be paying $149 for a PC and the entire cost will be the OS.