Thread: Moving away from Windows

I run Ubuntu on this lappy... allows me to take full advantage of the 64 bit dual core AMD without popping for the Windoze 64 bit version.

It also gives me access to some sweet tools for... um... poking about.

All this talk about linux...bsd ftw!

However, many tools are written for windows and I see no reason to run them in an emulated environment so will continue to run windows on most of my servers. Will probably do a dual (or triple) boot for the new ones I'm getting though.

I automatically thought we were going to be discussing standing away from windows during a lightning storm when I read the title of this thread. Goes to show you that I am not much of a computer person.

The article is fine, but Ubuntu doesn't really represent the main selling points of free UNIX-like operating systems. "Newbie distros" -- i.e. distributions that cater to Windows converts who want as gentle a learning curve as possible -- such as Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora/RHEL, and Mandriva wrap everything in a RAM-consuming GUI, unnecessarily. While they still have a few advantages over Windows (e.g. free in both senses and more secure), they put as much space between the user and the OS's internals as Windows does, preventing the user from achieving maximum productivity and power.

Distros like Slackware, Arch, and Gentoo (as well as other UNIX-like OSes such as FreeBSD), especially when running a highly productive X setup instead of a bloated desktop environment, are much more representative of the highly stable, secure, powerful, and flexible UNIX way (for lack of a better word).

Edit: But since that article is geared toward Windows converts anyway, I guess comparing Mac OS X to what I would consider a "good" distro might not be practical, so never mind my rant.

OSX has far more software for it that Linux and is really stable. Linux is also notoriously hard to use, especailly for newbies, while OSX has Apple's long reputation of ease of use. Linux has no standard, software written for KDE has no guarentee of working on Ubuntu.

They mentioned higher prices for the Mac operating system. WHAT? Compared to Linux yes, but Vista is $599, while Leopard will be $129. The machines themselves are more expensive because they are higher end, but software on Macs are far cheaper than their Windows counterpart ($499 for Office and $79 for iWork)

I didn't like that they said that Macs lacked in gaming. Mac games run faster than the same game on Windows because of it's using the second core as part of the graphics card (like a cell processor.) Most of the big games have a Mac version now and EA and iD both use Mac as a large part of their market. Microsoft even used Macs are development platform for their early Xbox 360 games (both use PPC processors)

I find it odd that they failed to mention that Parallels as of yet doesn't support hardware acceleration for most of DirectX.

I like both Ubuntu and Mac (I use both,) but I think the Mac is better in almost everyway. I really only have Ubuntu running on a machine because I needed an Intel processor and didn't want to deal with Windows.

Where did you get $600 Vista?! Home Premium is $159, and with academic prices you get $69!!

Usable Vista is expensive

Home Premium omits quite a few features
Scanning & faxing (I mean, no scanning, come on...)
VPN connections (so no access to the office network from your home)
Domain based networking (this is essential to schools & universities)

*edit*
I know a lot of these can be done with 3rd party software (minus domains)
but that's not the point

Originally Posted by ninja9578

OSX has far more software for it that Linux and is really stable. Linux is also notoriously hard to use, especailly for newbies, while OSX has Apple's long reputation of ease of use. Linux has no standard, software written for KDE has no guarentee of working on Ubuntu.

They mentioned higher prices for the Mac operating system. WHAT? Compared to Linux yes, but Vista is $599, while Leopard will be $129. The machines themselves are more expensive because they are higher end, but software on Macs are far cheaper than their Windows counterpart ($499 for Office and $79 for iWork)

I didn't like that they said that Macs lacked in gaming. Mac games run faster than the same game on Windows because of it's using the second core as part of the graphics card (like a cell processor.) Most of the big games have a Mac version now and EA and iD both use Mac as a large part of their market. Microsoft even used Macs are development platform for their early Xbox 360 games (both use PPC processors)

I find it odd that they failed to mention that Parallels as of yet doesn't support hardware acceleration for most of DirectX.

I like both Ubuntu and Mac (I use both,) but I think the Mac is better in almost everyway. I really only have Ubuntu running on a machine because I needed an Intel processor and didn't want to deal with Windows.

Why compare prices of completely different softwares? You don't have to use MS Office just because you're running an MS OS.

Macs don't use IBM CPUs anymore. They're dumping them completely in favor of Intel Core 2 and Xeon, so no need to use *nix to get Intel, can do that on a mac. (And using a CPU as graphics acceleration, if they do, is a really bad idea...) The same game compiled for Windows and OSX runs decently. About what can be expected from the Intel graphics chip the macbook we've tested on used.

Originally Posted by webmaster

Where did you get $600 Vista?! Home Premium is $159, and with academic prices you get $69!!

Vista Ultimate, the only Vista that can really be compared to Leopard.

Ultimate is $229 (from Amazon!)

While I do not dislike Linux at all, especially for servers etc, I do not see it fit as my desktop PC, my main work PC. For servers however, Linux is way better than Windows.

Now I know what you'll say; Ubuntu is one of those distros that's easy to install, has a nice looking desktop, yada yada yada. Ubuntu's main idea is to make Linux mainstream, and it's somewhat working. But still not really.

Why not? Because face it, Windows and OSX (especially Vista, but that's my personal opinion) look so much better. And I'm not talking about flashy effects like Flip3D or that thing Ubuntu does that makes your screen a huge cube. I'm talking about, for example, the taskbar. The "start" menu, etc.

That being said, I must stress on the fact Linux is still ten times better for servers and I'd see myself use Linux on a laptop, but no, definitely not on my desktop PC.

I agree, Windows and OSX have that candy-like feel to them. But I actually can't stand all that stuff. On my Debian box, I use FluxBox as my window manager. It's super-minimalist (the whole thing is like 500kb) and loads in a fraction of a second (as opposed to the likes of KDE, which take almost as much time as Explorer on Windows).

Actually, I want to learn how to use ION, which is one of those "100% tiled" ones and is designed to require little to no usage of the mouse.

Republicon, if you like Ion then you should try Ratpoison. It's even more minimalist, and it's also controlled by the keyboard. Check out this X setup that combines the productivity of Ratpoison with that of GNU Screen. It's the best desktop setup I've ever seen.

P.S. Ratpoison lets you temporarily switch back to fluxbox for those apps that just don't seem to work in a single window environment (e.g. the GIMP).

Hmmm, thanks! I've bookmarked that, maybe will give it a shot sometime soon.

Your welcome.

I've been using Ubuntu since October last year, I started as a complete novice and didn't know anybody else who used Linux.

I'll never switch back.

TweaK mentioned the lack of eye-candy in Linux, but probably the biggest thing that hit me when I switched back to Windows from my old Kanotix laptop was the LACK of good looks. I had KDE looking Fine. Capital F. Then I had to go back to fugly ol' XP. Of course I wound up getting StyleXP and a few nice visual styles for it after I found out about that, but in KDE it's integrated. As is a dock. Or at least a way to make the toolbar act as a dock.

Now I'm using Vista, (Home Premium) and I'm back to square one; no way to customize it. So in my opinion, Linux wins on the customizability factor. Sure, it may not be as nice looking out of the box as Leopard or Vista, but at least you can easily change the appearance if it doesn't suit you.


So, if anybody can point out some sort of customization toolset like StyleXP for Vista, I'd be forever grateful. I'm currently waiting on my Kubuntu CDs to get here. I plan to dual-boot Vista and either Kubuntu or SuSE. Best of both worlds that way.

Originally Posted by Man of Steel

TweaK mentioned the lack of eye-candy in Linux, but probably the biggest thing that hit me when I switched back to Windows from my old Kanotix laptop was the LACK of good looks. I had KDE looking Fine. Capital F. Then I had to go back to fugly ol' XP. Of course I wound up getting StyleXP and a few nice visual styles for it after I found out about that, but in KDE it's integrated. As is a dock. Or at least a way to make the toolbar act as a dock.

No, not so much lack of eyecandy as just lack of a general polished feeling to me. I'm not saying it looks bad, I'm saying Vista just looks ten times better to me. Also, the GUI seems to be interacting a lot smoother with "what's under the hood", so to say. I'm not saying it is that way, just saying I experience it all like that.

I've had multiple distros set up and they all work really nice, it's just that Windows gives me this feeling that all the current Linux releases don't (no matter what distro or UI used, be it KDE, GNOME, X, etc etc). And uhm, StyleXP.. yeaaah.. Read my small rant on that one below.

So, if anybody can point out some sort of customization toolset like StyleXP for Vista, I'd be forever grateful. I'm currently waiting on my Kubuntu CDs to get here. I plan to dual-boot Vista and either Kubuntu or SuSE. Best of both worlds that way.

I'd dual boot (K)Ubuntu/SuSE and Vista, yeah. StyleXP? No. Never. It hogs memory like mad, makes your computer kind of instable, and did I mention it hogs resources like mad? It really does. It just makes your box THAT much slower.

I personally thought KDE looked great, with not so much a hint of aliasing anywhere, and the Compiz effects where generally worthwhile, smooth, and versatile. I used Mandriva 2007.0.

Alas, it didn't boot unless I disconnected all USB devices and didn't work with my modem. So all in all, a disaster.

Playing with Linux in a VM, though, I have this think to say: it looks and sounds great, until you start using it, when you realise just how anal and needlessly complicated it is.

OS X looks decent though. And of course Windows XP is fine too (as long as you protect yourself). I've not tried Vista. But Linux, it's an uphill struggle that isn't worth it.

Plus, XP/Vista is virtually free, given it's ubiquity as a pre-installed OS, unless you build a PC yourself. Macs are way overpriced though, and are thoroughly in the poser market.

Macs are basically the same price as PCs. The thing is that Apple doesn't make low end computers, compare a Mac to a equivalent PC and the prices will be pretty close, plus software for a Mac is far cheaper.

Originally Posted by Identity X

Macs are way overpriced

I disagree. When the MacBook first came out, it was about $200 (USD) cheaper than a comparably-equipped Lenovo ThinkPad R60 (I tripled-checked my math at the time). Now they both (the newer MacBook and the ThinkPad R61) have better specs for the price, so I'm not sure which is cheaper now. The iMac is no more expensive than similar pre-assembled computers as it starts at $1199 with a 20-inch LCD, 2 GHz Intel Core Duo CPU, 1 GB of RAM, 250 GB hard drive, dedicated graphics card, etc. Considering that Mac OS X comes preinstalled and, thanks to Boot Camp, you can install Windows XP, Windows Vista, GNU/Linux distros, FreeBSD, and other OS'S, I think Apple is actually one of the better-priced vendors nowadays. Of course, though, you're best off assembling your own computer if you want the best value and don't intend to install a proprietary OS.