Discussions

Linux or Windows?

+
0 Votes
Locked

Linux or Windows?

Norehca
A frequently asked question. I see this come up alot in threads that are usually not related. people going back and forth about whats better. Heres a discussion thread for you to discuss why you like either or. Please no hating. I simply wonder why Linux users love it so much, and vice versa for Windows lovers.

Myself, i like both. On one hand Linux is free for most distros, its stable (reliable), nearly free of viruses, and has more non graphical approach where you do more of typing than clicking which in some cases is alot faster.

Windows on the other hand to me is easier. IT took me like 3 hours to install drivers on ubuntu and then afte ri was finally finished got a really unexpected blue screen. It took me 1 second to double click the installation file for Windows. Alot easier i think.

What about you???
  • +
    0 Votes
    iG34RH34D

    I would agree that Windows is definately easier with some tasks. But then you'd expect that for the price you generally pay for licensing. But it's really a matter of numbers. I don't know how many employees split between the different product and developement departments Redmond now boasts (probably more than a thousand) but there have been over 17 million people involved all told with just the Linux KERNEL. Not to mention the many busy hands working on COUNTLESS packages, servers and even open drivers & such. Linux will out-pace Windows eventually. Windows is a labor of profit. Linux is a labor of LOVE. Already package maturity and usability are much greater than just a few years ago. Although it can be frustrating to watch a program break or spend hours loading drivers, it's a pleasure to watch your favorite OS grow and mature to an ever more useful and stable giant. Just my opinions......

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    Labors of love rarely garner strong public attention or involvement.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I dont know the first thing about it... nor how to set it up... wouldnt know where to begin.

    I prefer a GUI to commandline any day of the week.

    However, read this article (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459) and read this report (ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-135.pdf).

    +
    0 Votes
    portable

    I have used Windows since version 3, I was a sys-admin on an HP-UX machine. Bothhave their great points, both have their "hair pullers". I love the power you have with unix commands, but the editors... come on! Windows is bloated and slow, and THEY decide where YOU want to put something. Some of it makes sense, but others... For instance, I would like to put only the operating system, programs, and drivers on the boot drive, and have data on a seperate drive. Ok, you can, but you have to tell each program seperately. Then, try to get a backup where you don't have to re-load everything!
    Unix is user hostile, but great if you know what your are doing, really gives you options and control.
    With what I see about Vista, my next OS will most likely be some flavor of unix.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    If Unix could have a simple Windows interface (like windows) and run Office, and be easy to install and configure, then great, I would probably move... but I am not about to learn a new operating system just yet.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    Most linux distros come standard with a great office suite called openoffice, and at the same time offer a user interface much like windows. And you can run apps the same way, although ive had trouble installing apps. They dont seem to show up in the programs menu. Im also a hardcore gamer, and dont feel like messing with wine. So ill be sticking with windows either untill someone creates a directx emulation, or al games start coming out for linux.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I think you misuderstood... I have looked at other office suites, and I prefer Microsoft Office. If it cannot run on a linux platform, it wont tempt me.

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    and I can respect that. Most people here wanted to keep Wordperfect but were forced into MS Office. But, at home, I much prefer Outlook over the alternatives, so I had to purchase it. I have tried a few alternatives in Linux, but now only check my mail from my XP box.
    hmmm. Maybe that will change one day, cause I cannot see buying an OS and Office suite just for Outlook!

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I used to like Pegasus32 for mail... it was good, but its gone now... lack of funds.

    I dont use outlook, I used to use it, but its such a bother to configure... I just go to the web site and its all there...all the time. So I dont worry too much. I have considered the syncronisation method too... and may do that... I am not sure yet.

    Currently i have issues with XP and and win2k box... and its posted. So I am not really about to try something new yet.

    I looked at k-windows - it looks ok... perhaps if I could see it all working as it should, I could be tempted...I dont know.

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    cause Linux has the power. If you choose, the KDE desktop is great and requires little to learn from Windows.

    However, even with Vista, you need to learn the OS (or relearn it).

    Ok, I admit, I use both WinXP and Linux now, all because of Vista. Before I was a Win-only person.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "I use both WinXP and Linux now, all because of Vista. Before I was a Win-only person."

    What does Vista have to do with you using both XP and Linux? If you don't like Vista, why not stick with XP alone?

    I'm not saying using both is a bad decision; I think it's a great idea. I'm trying to understand how Vista motivated you to learn Linux while keeping your XP box running.

    Thanks.

    +
    0 Votes

    Ok

    w2ktechman

    I started using Linux because of Vista.
    After installing beta versions I gave Linux another shot, something that I had been putting off since '98.
    I have been a Win-only user/tech. But after having to re-learn Vista I started moving to Linux. That is when I found out that it is much, much easier that it was just a few short years ago (almost 10 years).
    So, because of Vista I got a new look into the OS market and played with alternatives to MS. And I m very glad that I have.

    Yes, I am keeping XP. It is my favorite OS. And no, I have no plans to 'upgrade' to Vista.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    Looking like windows
    http://www.xpde.com/shots/startmenu.png

    You can also run MS Office with Crossover Office
    http://www.codeweavers.com/

    You can also play a pretty large list of Windows games with Cedega
    http://www.transgaming.com
    http://www.transgaming.org/gamesdb

    Hope that helps

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    That is certainly very helpful indeed... ok... tell me where to start please? What type of pc do I need? Etc...

    +
    0 Votes
    Jaqui

    depends, is the distro you picked an i386 binary?
    or i486 binary?
    or i586 binary?
    or x86_32 binary?
    or IA64 binary?

    Linux will run on any hardware.
    Drivers for new hardware are often problematical forthe first 6 to 12 months after the hardware hits the market.
    [ unless it's intel chipsets, then there are intel drivers for it. ]
    any pc over an intel 80286 with a minimum of 64 mb of ram wll run linux.

    Mandriva, and a very few others, have defaulted to requiring pentium class processors, most are still on the intel 80386 procesor binaries.
    Slackware is the only distro I know about that uses the intel 80486 processor as the default.

    Got an old sun sparc workstation? install linux on it.
    have an old mainframe kicking around? linux will power it.

    have an old mac kicking around? linux will power it.

    the only things that can be got yas with hardware, brand spanking new on the market, and wireless.
    [ and don't expect an itunes package to work with your ipod, apple won't make a linux version ]
    want fancy gui effects, 256mb ram and an entry level 3d graphics card for full functionality.

    hard drive space? 10 Gigs will install everything included in most distros, with space to spare.

    winex, and wine, working together will add even more games than cedega offers.
    [ wine will also power office, since it is the open source version of crossover office. [ yes, Codeweavers has both a comercial and open source version of their products ]

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    Run windows... the pc is intel, p3-350 with 86 meg ram.

    However, its tempting... just dont know enough of how to do it.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    I suggest Damn Small Linux. That should run well on a P3-350 86mb RAM.

    http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

    Or try Vector:
    http://www.vectorlinux.com/

    Good luck!

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    I am still building a new system, that was going to be a gaming system. I was hoping that XP would lower in price after Vista released, but that isn't happening yet. Maybe I should try this approach instead. I was going to swap 2 SATA drives as boot drives, one for XP, and 1 for Linux.

    A couple of questions though, I have only used Linux on notebooks and they have worked fine. But what about SATA drives and 64-bit on an Athlon 5200 or Athlon FX 62?

    +
    0 Votes
    Jaqui

    I'm using sata and 64 bit AMD right now :)

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    I went to codeweavers and tried an eval. Just finished installing Office03. Started Outlook setup on cached exchange and so far, so good.

    Thank You

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    All of those giving me advice and showing me that it is possible.

    I shall surely endeavour to try it, as soon as I get a free moment.

    +
    0 Votes
    pmcgrath

    Lets see...

    Easy to use GUI interface. Check.
    Runs on top of Unix (Free BSD). Check.
    Will run MS Office. Check.

    Yup, Mac OS X.

    Of course you stuck whith over priced hardware, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

    +
    0 Votes
    medullaoblongata

    Ignore this.

    +
    0 Votes
    jbakaev

    Windows is easier to use and it proved itself as a user friendly desktop.

    On the other side Linux seems robust and secure but needs deep knowledge.

    Is there anyone using windows for desktops and Linux for servers? How are they working together?

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    this guy will show you how to install vista the right way!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjB1XzayjtA

    i dont think he likes windows vista...but dont let him be your deciding factor haha

    +
    0 Votes

    LOL

    w2ktechman

    Ahhh, a refreshing outlook for once

    +
    0 Votes
    statykserver

    quote
    Trust me, it took me 3 hours to install drivers on Ubuntu and required many many lines of code (and it didnt work). It took me 1 second to double click the installation file for Windows. That is easier and theres no argument there. Windows does what i want and it does it to my satisfaction.
    end quote

    I custom built my pc and when I had to install XP it took me some time to get the operating system installed, system drivers installed for my hardware, service pack 2, antivirus and whatever software I wanted to put on it. Anyone can agree that this will also take a few hours in some situations as I definitely went through it.
    Just as you went through 3 hours of unsuccessful attempts to get your system up and running on Ubuntu. I had used several distros before and ended up using Kubuntu. And for me the install went through without a hitch and pretty quickly. My hardware was working right after the install but I still spent some time installing software I wanted and some codecs. I like my free desktop, others choose windows. People will make their own choices based on what is best for them. And since I don't want to spend $$ for a new OS, antivirus, etc. (and possibly hardware)I've made up my mind to use linux. The really great thing is that we all have a choice!

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    With the size of hard drives today, the availability of free virtual machine software, and the relative ease of configuring a machine to dual boot, why not run both?

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    Palmetto, you are 100% right.

    1/. I am not able to afford another system, or would get one

    2/. I dont know ANYTHING at all about linux

    3/. Why dual boot? You can only ever use one at a time.

    +
    0 Votes
    statykserver

    quote
    Palmetto, you are 100% right.

    1/. I am not able to afford another system, or would get one

    2/. I dont know ANYTHING at all about linux

    3/. Why dual boot? You can only ever use one at a time.
    quote
    If you agree that Palmetto is "100%" right then your number 3 question/answer certainly goes 100% against what Palmetto just posted.
    Posted by Palmetto

    With the size of hard drives today, the availability of free virtual machine software, and the relative ease of configuring a machine to dual boot, why not run both?

    Anyway I agree with Palmetto .... Why not run both? If you looked at the screenshot I posted it shows that you can use more than one at a time and I mainly use the virtualization to help friends and family with the Operating Systems that they have installed. It helps me see what they are seeing and I can walk them through their problems.

    Anyone interested in the program in the screenshot can read about it here
    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211560&messageID=2173110

    Cheers

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    i use a great program called vmware that allows me to run linux on windows or vice versa. Its great and because linux doesnt have steep system requirements, i dont need to allocate alot of RAM towards it. So i can have Linux running at the same time as windows, and still run any application just fine. I usually dont even notice a difference in performance alot of the time.

    +
    0 Votes
    apotheon

    1. Security. When you boot into an OS that provides a less secure environment, you're making yourself vulnerable. Sometimes, it makes sense to choose one when the other exposes you to increased risk.

    2. Price. Sometimes it makes sense to avoid extra options if the extras cost money.

    3. Ethics. I choose to run FreeBSD, because I find the licensing terms of Linux to be somewhat ethically problematic, and because I find the licensing terms of MS Windows to be downright reprehensible and intolerable.

    That having been said, I do still use more than one OS. I still have three servers running Linux, and even when I've migrated those to FreeBSD I'll probably end up setting up a machine that dual-boots FreeBSD and Linux because I'll want to use Linux for gaming (bet ya didn't see that one coming). I also, occasionally, have to test stuff on MS Windows -- like web development that requires IE on MS Windows for a relevant cross-browser compatibility test (though at present I'm just using someone else's computer for testing, rather than running MS Windows on a computer of my own).

    I'd really rather be in a world where I could more easily avoid software licenses whose ethical implications don't bother me, however. I'm working on improving my own position in relation to that a little at a time -- which is how I arrived at FreeBSD in the first place.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    ok so i see alot of you enjoy linux. I myself have had no problems with the OS itself. Ive had certian problems that are related to lack of experience but other than that ive really had no trouble. So which distro do you recommend? I am currently using Ubuntu on VMWare. I havnt really PUT it on yet. But i think i may in the near future. And to put you at ease im actually thinking of replacing windows vista with linux. For now anyway untill i can actually play my games on Vista. I have listened to your comment etc. about Vista and through my slight ignorance i have come to see you are correct about vista. I will be more open minded to thoughts in the future.

    So which distro do you suggest. I figure it depends on what im going to use it for. I guess id like to try and get some games working on it. Hopefuly get WINE to run better this time. Internet, office etc. SO what would you suggest?

    +
    0 Votes
    apotheon

    As someone just getting used to regular Linux use, Ubuntu makes for a pretty good introductory distribution. For sustained use, once you really know what you're doing, Debian is (in my opinion at least) the best Linux distribution.

    An even better (in technical terms) unixy OS is FreeBSD, which isn't the same thing as Linux (it uses a BSD kernel and BSD toolset rather than a Linux kernel and GNU toolset). I also find FreeBSD to be more ethically palatable than MS Windows, Apple MacOS X, or even Debian Linux -- as I've already indicated.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    ill will give freeBSD and Debian a try then! ill test it out on vmware and see if i like it first. Ill stick with Ubuntu for now untill i give those other distros a run and see what happens. Im excited to see how it iwll run with this computer. I have yet to fully install linux on this machine. Ive only ran it as a virtual machine which of course doesnt show linux's true power.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I would like to run Linux, with Beryl... or at least try it.

    I have a laptop that was initially designed for Windows 9x. I put XP home on it to try - it runs - but super slow but was expected.

    Anyway, I want to try Linux on this pc, even though it may be slow - I just want to see it in action.

    Where do I start please? I would really like to try.

    EDIT:

    The pc is intel celeron 646, 64 mb ram. If what I wish to try is not viable with this pc, then please tell me.

  • +
    0 Votes
    iG34RH34D

    I would agree that Windows is definately easier with some tasks. But then you'd expect that for the price you generally pay for licensing. But it's really a matter of numbers. I don't know how many employees split between the different product and developement departments Redmond now boasts (probably more than a thousand) but there have been over 17 million people involved all told with just the Linux KERNEL. Not to mention the many busy hands working on COUNTLESS packages, servers and even open drivers & such. Linux will out-pace Windows eventually. Windows is a labor of profit. Linux is a labor of LOVE. Already package maturity and usability are much greater than just a few years ago. Although it can be frustrating to watch a program break or spend hours loading drivers, it's a pleasure to watch your favorite OS grow and mature to an ever more useful and stable giant. Just my opinions......

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    Labors of love rarely garner strong public attention or involvement.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I dont know the first thing about it... nor how to set it up... wouldnt know where to begin.

    I prefer a GUI to commandline any day of the week.

    However, read this article (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459) and read this report (ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-135.pdf).

    +
    0 Votes
    portable

    I have used Windows since version 3, I was a sys-admin on an HP-UX machine. Bothhave their great points, both have their "hair pullers". I love the power you have with unix commands, but the editors... come on! Windows is bloated and slow, and THEY decide where YOU want to put something. Some of it makes sense, but others... For instance, I would like to put only the operating system, programs, and drivers on the boot drive, and have data on a seperate drive. Ok, you can, but you have to tell each program seperately. Then, try to get a backup where you don't have to re-load everything!
    Unix is user hostile, but great if you know what your are doing, really gives you options and control.
    With what I see about Vista, my next OS will most likely be some flavor of unix.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    If Unix could have a simple Windows interface (like windows) and run Office, and be easy to install and configure, then great, I would probably move... but I am not about to learn a new operating system just yet.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    Most linux distros come standard with a great office suite called openoffice, and at the same time offer a user interface much like windows. And you can run apps the same way, although ive had trouble installing apps. They dont seem to show up in the programs menu. Im also a hardcore gamer, and dont feel like messing with wine. So ill be sticking with windows either untill someone creates a directx emulation, or al games start coming out for linux.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I think you misuderstood... I have looked at other office suites, and I prefer Microsoft Office. If it cannot run on a linux platform, it wont tempt me.

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    and I can respect that. Most people here wanted to keep Wordperfect but were forced into MS Office. But, at home, I much prefer Outlook over the alternatives, so I had to purchase it. I have tried a few alternatives in Linux, but now only check my mail from my XP box.
    hmmm. Maybe that will change one day, cause I cannot see buying an OS and Office suite just for Outlook!

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I used to like Pegasus32 for mail... it was good, but its gone now... lack of funds.

    I dont use outlook, I used to use it, but its such a bother to configure... I just go to the web site and its all there...all the time. So I dont worry too much. I have considered the syncronisation method too... and may do that... I am not sure yet.

    Currently i have issues with XP and and win2k box... and its posted. So I am not really about to try something new yet.

    I looked at k-windows - it looks ok... perhaps if I could see it all working as it should, I could be tempted...I dont know.

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    cause Linux has the power. If you choose, the KDE desktop is great and requires little to learn from Windows.

    However, even with Vista, you need to learn the OS (or relearn it).

    Ok, I admit, I use both WinXP and Linux now, all because of Vista. Before I was a Win-only person.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "I use both WinXP and Linux now, all because of Vista. Before I was a Win-only person."

    What does Vista have to do with you using both XP and Linux? If you don't like Vista, why not stick with XP alone?

    I'm not saying using both is a bad decision; I think it's a great idea. I'm trying to understand how Vista motivated you to learn Linux while keeping your XP box running.

    Thanks.

    +
    0 Votes

    Ok

    w2ktechman

    I started using Linux because of Vista.
    After installing beta versions I gave Linux another shot, something that I had been putting off since '98.
    I have been a Win-only user/tech. But after having to re-learn Vista I started moving to Linux. That is when I found out that it is much, much easier that it was just a few short years ago (almost 10 years).
    So, because of Vista I got a new look into the OS market and played with alternatives to MS. And I m very glad that I have.

    Yes, I am keeping XP. It is my favorite OS. And no, I have no plans to 'upgrade' to Vista.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    Looking like windows
    http://www.xpde.com/shots/startmenu.png

    You can also run MS Office with Crossover Office
    http://www.codeweavers.com/

    You can also play a pretty large list of Windows games with Cedega
    http://www.transgaming.com
    http://www.transgaming.org/gamesdb

    Hope that helps

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    That is certainly very helpful indeed... ok... tell me where to start please? What type of pc do I need? Etc...

    +
    0 Votes
    Jaqui

    depends, is the distro you picked an i386 binary?
    or i486 binary?
    or i586 binary?
    or x86_32 binary?
    or IA64 binary?

    Linux will run on any hardware.
    Drivers for new hardware are often problematical forthe first 6 to 12 months after the hardware hits the market.
    [ unless it's intel chipsets, then there are intel drivers for it. ]
    any pc over an intel 80286 with a minimum of 64 mb of ram wll run linux.

    Mandriva, and a very few others, have defaulted to requiring pentium class processors, most are still on the intel 80386 procesor binaries.
    Slackware is the only distro I know about that uses the intel 80486 processor as the default.

    Got an old sun sparc workstation? install linux on it.
    have an old mainframe kicking around? linux will power it.

    have an old mac kicking around? linux will power it.

    the only things that can be got yas with hardware, brand spanking new on the market, and wireless.
    [ and don't expect an itunes package to work with your ipod, apple won't make a linux version ]
    want fancy gui effects, 256mb ram and an entry level 3d graphics card for full functionality.

    hard drive space? 10 Gigs will install everything included in most distros, with space to spare.

    winex, and wine, working together will add even more games than cedega offers.
    [ wine will also power office, since it is the open source version of crossover office. [ yes, Codeweavers has both a comercial and open source version of their products ]

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    Run windows... the pc is intel, p3-350 with 86 meg ram.

    However, its tempting... just dont know enough of how to do it.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    I suggest Damn Small Linux. That should run well on a P3-350 86mb RAM.

    http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

    Or try Vector:
    http://www.vectorlinux.com/

    Good luck!

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    I am still building a new system, that was going to be a gaming system. I was hoping that XP would lower in price after Vista released, but that isn't happening yet. Maybe I should try this approach instead. I was going to swap 2 SATA drives as boot drives, one for XP, and 1 for Linux.

    A couple of questions though, I have only used Linux on notebooks and they have worked fine. But what about SATA drives and 64-bit on an Athlon 5200 or Athlon FX 62?

    +
    0 Votes
    Jaqui

    I'm using sata and 64 bit AMD right now :)

    +
    0 Votes
    w2ktechman

    I went to codeweavers and tried an eval. Just finished installing Office03. Started Outlook setup on cached exchange and so far, so good.

    Thank You

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    All of those giving me advice and showing me that it is possible.

    I shall surely endeavour to try it, as soon as I get a free moment.

    +
    0 Votes
    pmcgrath

    Lets see...

    Easy to use GUI interface. Check.
    Runs on top of Unix (Free BSD). Check.
    Will run MS Office. Check.

    Yup, Mac OS X.

    Of course you stuck whith over priced hardware, but 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

    +
    0 Votes
    medullaoblongata

    Ignore this.

    +
    0 Votes
    jbakaev

    Windows is easier to use and it proved itself as a user friendly desktop.

    On the other side Linux seems robust and secure but needs deep knowledge.

    Is there anyone using windows for desktops and Linux for servers? How are they working together?

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    this guy will show you how to install vista the right way!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjB1XzayjtA

    i dont think he likes windows vista...but dont let him be your deciding factor haha

    +
    0 Votes

    LOL

    w2ktechman

    Ahhh, a refreshing outlook for once

    +
    0 Votes
    statykserver

    quote
    Trust me, it took me 3 hours to install drivers on Ubuntu and required many many lines of code (and it didnt work). It took me 1 second to double click the installation file for Windows. That is easier and theres no argument there. Windows does what i want and it does it to my satisfaction.
    end quote

    I custom built my pc and when I had to install XP it took me some time to get the operating system installed, system drivers installed for my hardware, service pack 2, antivirus and whatever software I wanted to put on it. Anyone can agree that this will also take a few hours in some situations as I definitely went through it.
    Just as you went through 3 hours of unsuccessful attempts to get your system up and running on Ubuntu. I had used several distros before and ended up using Kubuntu. And for me the install went through without a hitch and pretty quickly. My hardware was working right after the install but I still spent some time installing software I wanted and some codecs. I like my free desktop, others choose windows. People will make their own choices based on what is best for them. And since I don't want to spend $$ for a new OS, antivirus, etc. (and possibly hardware)I've made up my mind to use linux. The really great thing is that we all have a choice!

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    With the size of hard drives today, the availability of free virtual machine software, and the relative ease of configuring a machine to dual boot, why not run both?

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    Palmetto, you are 100% right.

    1/. I am not able to afford another system, or would get one

    2/. I dont know ANYTHING at all about linux

    3/. Why dual boot? You can only ever use one at a time.

    +
    0 Votes
    statykserver

    quote
    Palmetto, you are 100% right.

    1/. I am not able to afford another system, or would get one

    2/. I dont know ANYTHING at all about linux

    3/. Why dual boot? You can only ever use one at a time.
    quote
    If you agree that Palmetto is "100%" right then your number 3 question/answer certainly goes 100% against what Palmetto just posted.
    Posted by Palmetto

    With the size of hard drives today, the availability of free virtual machine software, and the relative ease of configuring a machine to dual boot, why not run both?

    Anyway I agree with Palmetto .... Why not run both? If you looked at the screenshot I posted it shows that you can use more than one at a time and I mainly use the virtualization to help friends and family with the Operating Systems that they have installed. It helps me see what they are seeing and I can walk them through their problems.

    Anyone interested in the program in the screenshot can read about it here
    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211560&messageID=2173110

    Cheers

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    i use a great program called vmware that allows me to run linux on windows or vice versa. Its great and because linux doesnt have steep system requirements, i dont need to allocate alot of RAM towards it. So i can have Linux running at the same time as windows, and still run any application just fine. I usually dont even notice a difference in performance alot of the time.

    +
    0 Votes
    apotheon

    1. Security. When you boot into an OS that provides a less secure environment, you're making yourself vulnerable. Sometimes, it makes sense to choose one when the other exposes you to increased risk.

    2. Price. Sometimes it makes sense to avoid extra options if the extras cost money.

    3. Ethics. I choose to run FreeBSD, because I find the licensing terms of Linux to be somewhat ethically problematic, and because I find the licensing terms of MS Windows to be downright reprehensible and intolerable.

    That having been said, I do still use more than one OS. I still have three servers running Linux, and even when I've migrated those to FreeBSD I'll probably end up setting up a machine that dual-boots FreeBSD and Linux because I'll want to use Linux for gaming (bet ya didn't see that one coming). I also, occasionally, have to test stuff on MS Windows -- like web development that requires IE on MS Windows for a relevant cross-browser compatibility test (though at present I'm just using someone else's computer for testing, rather than running MS Windows on a computer of my own).

    I'd really rather be in a world where I could more easily avoid software licenses whose ethical implications don't bother me, however. I'm working on improving my own position in relation to that a little at a time -- which is how I arrived at FreeBSD in the first place.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    ok so i see alot of you enjoy linux. I myself have had no problems with the OS itself. Ive had certian problems that are related to lack of experience but other than that ive really had no trouble. So which distro do you recommend? I am currently using Ubuntu on VMWare. I havnt really PUT it on yet. But i think i may in the near future. And to put you at ease im actually thinking of replacing windows vista with linux. For now anyway untill i can actually play my games on Vista. I have listened to your comment etc. about Vista and through my slight ignorance i have come to see you are correct about vista. I will be more open minded to thoughts in the future.

    So which distro do you suggest. I figure it depends on what im going to use it for. I guess id like to try and get some games working on it. Hopefuly get WINE to run better this time. Internet, office etc. SO what would you suggest?

    +
    0 Votes
    apotheon

    As someone just getting used to regular Linux use, Ubuntu makes for a pretty good introductory distribution. For sustained use, once you really know what you're doing, Debian is (in my opinion at least) the best Linux distribution.

    An even better (in technical terms) unixy OS is FreeBSD, which isn't the same thing as Linux (it uses a BSD kernel and BSD toolset rather than a Linux kernel and GNU toolset). I also find FreeBSD to be more ethically palatable than MS Windows, Apple MacOS X, or even Debian Linux -- as I've already indicated.

    +
    0 Votes
    Norehca

    ill will give freeBSD and Debian a try then! ill test it out on vmware and see if i like it first. Ill stick with Ubuntu for now untill i give those other distros a run and see what happens. Im excited to see how it iwll run with this computer. I have yet to fully install linux on this machine. Ive only ran it as a virtual machine which of course doesnt show linux's true power.

    +
    0 Votes
    Shaun.G

    I would like to run Linux, with Beryl... or at least try it.

    I have a laptop that was initially designed for Windows 9x. I put XP home on it to try - it runs - but super slow but was expected.

    Anyway, I want to try Linux on this pc, even though it may be slow - I just want to see it in action.

    Where do I start please? I would really like to try.

    EDIT:

    The pc is intel celeron 646, 64 mb ram. If what I wish to try is not viable with this pc, then please tell me.