Having paid an extortionate amount of money for my Adobe Master Collection, Linux can go suck a lemon, there's NOTHING open source that can touch it and I doubt there ever will be, if I need to know something specific to *nix I'll boot up a distro in a VM.
Linux users what do you still need windows for?
- Thread starter _TubbZ_
- Start date
you still need windows for other reasons other than games then...You're doing it wrong
Associate
Football manager! But i am looking to do a dual boot some time in the future.
Soldato
What, Thunderbird?
True, perhaps I should have said 'only for games, but if i really have to use windows, i'll use a VM'
yes I did try that
it only gave me a handful of channels on my hauppauge hvr 1100 and after troubleshooting I decided to give it up.
IMAP just isn't the same.
Last edited:
Associate
Games, Visual Studio. I just need to finish mass effect and mass effect 2 and that'll be me good to drop everything and try out Gentoo again, haven't touched it in 3 years or so!
Associate
Games (for obvious reasons), photo stuff (lightroom+colour calibration=windows) and occasionally audio recording/mixing (much easier getting plugins to work with windows, though Ardour is REALLY good on ubuntu). Oh, and skype, as I can't make my webcam work with ubuntu.
Everything else I do on Ubuntu now, including MS office 2007, which runs flawlessly with wine.
Everything else I do on Ubuntu now, including MS office 2007, which runs flawlessly with wine.
Soldato
I hate to sy it, but since Windows 7. Maybe the question should be... Why bother with anything else?
Soldato
Because 'anything else' is better for 99% of people? If you really like the interface then there are plenty of GTK, Gnome, KDE... whatever themes that mimik it rather well.
http://www.killertechtips.com/2009/05/09/download-windows-7-transformation-pack-for-kde/
Soldato
Its not the interface, although its all very well and pretty etc, I have used the Classic Theme on Windows ever since Win2K and I dont think that will be changing any time soon.
No, its everythign else that goes along with it, and beside, I absolutely love the look on my Linux box right now ( Running Mint 8 with Emerald & Compiz on Gnome ) and thats certainly visual.
No, visuals are a small part of it. I mean everything else that goes with an O/S. The software, the reliability, everything, and now that Win7 gives us an O/S thats even better than XP, then avoiding it just because its made by MS is a ludicrous ( Even if often valid ) reason.
It seems to me that so many people tend to use linux for many things and then only go back to Windows to play games. How interesting. Again, I dont know of a genuine reason why other than a dislike for MS and that I find foolish since the user is still going back for the games, meaning clearly that you cannot go without Windows... Even those who never leave linux are still using Wine.
Windows is clearly that much more superior to Linux, that very few people can truly let it go. Dotn get me wrong I know personally a fair load of people who have done exactly that and have ZERO to do with Microsoft, but as you see from the posts on this very thread alone, too many people really cannot let Windows go, so why not let linux go and use the better software in windows than the often shabby unfinished software in Linux?
( Please dont take this as a dig to Linux, I am tryign to look at things from all angles here and I just want to have a good solid debate )
No, its everythign else that goes along with it, and beside, I absolutely love the look on my Linux box right now ( Running Mint 8 with Emerald & Compiz on Gnome ) and thats certainly visual.
No, visuals are a small part of it. I mean everything else that goes with an O/S. The software, the reliability, everything, and now that Win7 gives us an O/S thats even better than XP, then avoiding it just because its made by MS is a ludicrous ( Even if often valid ) reason.
It seems to me that so many people tend to use linux for many things and then only go back to Windows to play games. How interesting. Again, I dont know of a genuine reason why other than a dislike for MS and that I find foolish since the user is still going back for the games, meaning clearly that you cannot go without Windows... Even those who never leave linux are still using Wine.
Windows is clearly that much more superior to Linux, that very few people can truly let it go. Dotn get me wrong I know personally a fair load of people who have done exactly that and have ZERO to do with Microsoft, but as you see from the posts on this very thread alone, too many people really cannot let Windows go, so why not let linux go and use the better software in windows than the often shabby unfinished software in Linux?
( Please dont take this as a dig to Linux, I am tryign to look at things from all angles here and I just want to have a good solid debate )
Soldato
You're using reliability as a case for Windows? And you do realise that 7 is essentially Vista with a new skin and some different bundled software right? Why should using Windows be the best idea around, when you consider the advantages of using another, Open Source, Operating System? Just because Microsoft has a monopoly and offer corporate support doesn't:
A: Make their product the best.
B: Make their product worth more money.
The only reason people do go back to Windows (or use Wine) is solely because of the monopoly, meaning that developers have little choice but to make them for that platform. If more people used Linux based operating systems then yeah, there would be no reason to go back because the software would already be available for you. Not that there isn't already a fair amount, enough in fact to let you do pretty much anything. As for "better software in windows than the often shabby unfinished software in Linux" that's just utter rubbish. People like Microsoft can just make whatever they want, put very little effort into it and use very inefficient coding then stick it on a disk and sell it for a ridiculous price, and people will still buy it. Open Source developers aren't doing it for material gain, they're doing it because they want to. They have to make a good program if they want anybody to use it. You might be confused by this though being a long-time Windows user, and there's a good read on this subject below, but most Linux software is released at v0.1, as opposed to v1.0 on Windows. It's not released as v1.0 until it's received appropriate criticism and bug fixes etc. to make it a stable, good program that people want to use.
In what possible way is Windows superior to Linux/GNU other than the fact that more people use it? It's more bloated, less secure, restricted by the EULA, less customizable, leads to little actual choice for the end user and on top of that it costs a stupid amount for what is essentially a disk, a case and a little A5 booklet to go with it. They already have the data and if they charged say £10 for Windows 7 they would still be stinking rich, their developers would get paid and they would have a stupid amount sitting in the bank doing nothing. Would it then be preferable to Linux? I doubt i would use it.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
A: Make their product the best.
B: Make their product worth more money.
The only reason people do go back to Windows (or use Wine) is solely because of the monopoly, meaning that developers have little choice but to make them for that platform. If more people used Linux based operating systems then yeah, there would be no reason to go back because the software would already be available for you. Not that there isn't already a fair amount, enough in fact to let you do pretty much anything. As for "better software in windows than the often shabby unfinished software in Linux" that's just utter rubbish. People like Microsoft can just make whatever they want, put very little effort into it and use very inefficient coding then stick it on a disk and sell it for a ridiculous price, and people will still buy it. Open Source developers aren't doing it for material gain, they're doing it because they want to. They have to make a good program if they want anybody to use it. You might be confused by this though being a long-time Windows user, and there's a good read on this subject below, but most Linux software is released at v0.1, as opposed to v1.0 on Windows. It's not released as v1.0 until it's received appropriate criticism and bug fixes etc. to make it a stable, good program that people want to use.
In what possible way is Windows superior to Linux/GNU other than the fact that more people use it? It's more bloated, less secure, restricted by the EULA, less customizable, leads to little actual choice for the end user and on top of that it costs a stupid amount for what is essentially a disk, a case and a little A5 booklet to go with it. They already have the data and if they charged say £10 for Windows 7 they would still be stinking rich, their developers would get paid and they would have a stupid amount sitting in the bank doing nothing. Would it then be preferable to Linux? I doubt i would use it.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Last edited:
Fairly amused by claiming windows is more reliable than linux. Linux admin costs more than microsoft admin, so I suppose everyone deliberately running more expensive servers is doing so out of an unreasonable dislike of microsoft, and not because linux is better by a wide enough margin to justify the cost.
Shabby, unfinished software? Cite your examples. I give you the vast majority of cnet as examples of poor, bug ridden windows software. There are unstable/testing versions of linux which will cheerfully let you play with the code as it's being written. If you don't like that, then you have debian stable where absolutely nothing is going to break and the code is as "finished" as any can reasonably be. Unless of course you're arguing that continually working on software is a bad thing and makes it "unfinished", in which case I can't help but mention the numerous service packs and updates m$ relies upon to keep its software from breaking completely. Vista was blatently shabby and unfinished.
Wine/cedega are getting there with windows games. This is fairly impressive given they're running code written exclusively for a different operating system. Virtualbox is trialling passing the 3d acceleration abilities of the host through to the virtual machine as an alternative. This doesn't mean windows is vastly superior, it means the majority of users have windows and so if you code for windows you sell more games. CAD is making progress; Ansys, mathematica, matlab all run fine under linux,. The majority of the scientific community run a version of fedora, this probably drives the release of such software under linux.
I'm afraid your argument seems to be built around more people use windows, therefore windows clearly better. I counter with most people use whatever came preinstalled. I met linux as Xandros when it was on my first netbook, without that push I'd have probably never got around to trying it. And I'm very fond of it now, and find windows ridiculously restrictive.
um, Superewza... you're not paying for the disk or booklet, you're paying for the man hours which went into developing it. On which note, I was once told that as soon as programmers time costs more than the benefit from fixing bugs, a company like microsoft is forced to limit the bug testing. Code can be abysmally inefficient now and it doesn't matter because the processors are fast.
In the linux world, most people work for free. This means they can work towards whatever ideal they like, and not the widest profit margins for a given piece of code. The linux kernel is exclusively C, because it's fast. I've seen some terribly scathing opinions on C++ posted by kernel developers based around it being easier to write in but producing lower quality code.
Shabby, unfinished software? Cite your examples. I give you the vast majority of cnet as examples of poor, bug ridden windows software. There are unstable/testing versions of linux which will cheerfully let you play with the code as it's being written. If you don't like that, then you have debian stable where absolutely nothing is going to break and the code is as "finished" as any can reasonably be. Unless of course you're arguing that continually working on software is a bad thing and makes it "unfinished", in which case I can't help but mention the numerous service packs and updates m$ relies upon to keep its software from breaking completely. Vista was blatently shabby and unfinished.
Wine/cedega are getting there with windows games. This is fairly impressive given they're running code written exclusively for a different operating system. Virtualbox is trialling passing the 3d acceleration abilities of the host through to the virtual machine as an alternative. This doesn't mean windows is vastly superior, it means the majority of users have windows and so if you code for windows you sell more games. CAD is making progress; Ansys, mathematica, matlab all run fine under linux,. The majority of the scientific community run a version of fedora, this probably drives the release of such software under linux.
I'm afraid your argument seems to be built around more people use windows, therefore windows clearly better. I counter with most people use whatever came preinstalled. I met linux as Xandros when it was on my first netbook, without that push I'd have probably never got around to trying it. And I'm very fond of it now, and find windows ridiculously restrictive.
um, Superewza... you're not paying for the disk or booklet, you're paying for the man hours which went into developing it. On which note, I was once told that as soon as programmers time costs more than the benefit from fixing bugs, a company like microsoft is forced to limit the bug testing. Code can be abysmally inefficient now and it doesn't matter because the processors are fast.
In the linux world, most people work for free. This means they can work towards whatever ideal they like, and not the widest profit margins for a given piece of code. The linux kernel is exclusively C, because it's fast. I've seen some terribly scathing opinions on C++ posted by kernel developers based around it being easier to write in but producing lower quality code.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes. Why?
I am lucky and I have extended my home and built a nice little LAN for me and my kids and a few of their mates, so I have a fair handfull of half decent PCs. Since XP64 came out, my main PCO has run it and over the next couple of years I have moved them to XP64, and so, they have all been running XP64. More recently Vista came out and I bought that but with tests I decided against it. With SP2 its now fine, but the dammage was done, Win7 came along and now all the LAN PCs are already running that.
I have to say that in... What? 7 or so years that I have been working with XP64, but I have not seen a BSOD of any kind? My computers dont crash and they dont give me any headaches at all... Not really.
My Linux PCs however... I have never had a Linux Pc thats been flawless, they have always done something to annoy me, lack of responsiveness, or simply trashing itself. I have my Sabayon PC and thats been up for 2 years now and its going well, and my main Linux PC is running the latest MiNT8 with lots of eye candy and that too is running ok, but already I have had some iritating issues.
So, if only going by my own experiences, Windows is infinitely more reliable than Linux is yes.
I heard that crap too!
Its just as stupid to even consider it today as it was back then.
Sure they quite possibly share a lot of their herritage but they next to none of the same code.
No, I cannot accept that at all.
I use an Atari and I know many more do to, similarly, with the amiga. Tehy are still very much alive and kicking ( just ) and some of the software developed are superior to many of the Linux & Windows efforts and yet were knocked up by some kid in their bedrooms!
MicroSoft does not have a monopoly on all software that comes out for Windows and their Monopoly while certainly tight with Windows itself most certainly cannot be the cause of slow software development in Linux
Ok ok I see where you are here. Granted. I know that Linux Software if almost always released PRE-PRE-BETA and is often a building block to see how it goes, gain feedback etc etc
Bloated? Thats clearly a joke right?
Win7 is less than half the size of Vista, and yet every new edition of Linux that I try is only getting bigger and bigger.
Restricted by the EULA?
Only for Microsoft products. The only MS product I use is Windows itself.
---
Ok, cheers for this... Interesting.
Interesting that you're finding windows to be more stable than linux. At the risk of asking an obvious thing, you're not running at root any typing commands found dotted around on the internet without working out what they do first?
Bloated is definitely not a joke. My OS, including gnome and every program I've wanted to use in the last three weeks or so, is 2.2gb in size. There's an awful lot of people on here who say they can't use a 30gb ssd because windows wont fit. I believe you to be assuming all linux distributions are like mint, which as an ubuntu derivative probably is becoming more bloated with every release.
Not restricted by the EULA. Restricted in anything you do. I started a thread [post=15956378]here[/post] which concluded that people don't change anything in windows 7 because they think it's perfect already. Well bugger that. I want to assemble an OS optimised for my uses, not use the defaults intended to cover absolutely everyone who ever uses the software.
Bloated is definitely not a joke. My OS, including gnome and every program I've wanted to use in the last three weeks or so, is 2.2gb in size. There's an awful lot of people on here who say they can't use a 30gb ssd because windows wont fit. I believe you to be assuming all linux distributions are like mint, which as an ubuntu derivative probably is becoming more bloated with every release.
Not restricted by the EULA. Restricted in anything you do. I started a thread [post=15956378]here[/post] which concluded that people don't change anything in windows 7 because they think it's perfect already. Well bugger that. I want to assemble an OS optimised for my uses, not use the defaults intended to cover absolutely everyone who ever uses the software.
Soldato
No, you dont get it at all.
I claim its more reliable based on my own experiances, plus of course every issue with windows' reliability is realy down to the user error more than windows.
Im bored of this one. XP has already proven itself time and time again simply by being the No1 O/S for so long.
Running more expensive Servers / Justifying the costs?
What does this have to do with using it as a desktop O/S
Besides, the price hike is often not the Servers themselves, btu the upkeep of the servers. This hike is deliberately kept high not because its better but because the system admins like to charge more because its "M0R3 LEE7" than a Windows Server.
Ok, let me think...
Erm, yes, but apart from all of that...LOL
Oh no, dont get me wrong, Im not arguing at all... Im trying to find out why people love Linux so much.
Yes well, MS failed with WinME and he hada laugh but saw that it did have some nice bits of code... I myself used DEFRAG.EXE in my Win98SE Setup for example, but I was rather hoping that MS learned from that mistake, but they then came along with Vista.... I think it was supposed to be an April fools joke, but aparently, it really is supposed to be a replacement for XP?
Yes, I have had varying success with these.
The most success that I managed, was with UnReal Tounrament ( Although recently I have failed massively to get them installed in Linux at all? )
When comparing MS VS Linux VS Wine I found that Linux ran the game better than Windows and I was pleasantly surprised.
But still.
Yup.
Thats unfair.
you are coming up with facts now
LOL
Mine was Mandrake 6.1 - My first full Boxed Set. I loved that to bits and I still have it although its not installed on anything. Hell, I remember throwing away a perfectl good 6.2GBHD because I thought that Linux had wrecked it.... Some time later I learned about FDISK / MBR and I realised what happened.
This is very much along the lines of Atari / Amiga coders today.
I know that with the Atari, the software does not come out much anymore these days, but when it does come out, it of such a high quality that you often wonder how its possible for just one guy to write that?
A Perfect example would be perhaps MiNT on the Atari...
Lets imagine now, that someone wrote a small bit of code for Windows, that let Windows have full access to Linux partitions, and for Windows to have full access to any and all Linux software, to be able to install Linux and Windows software alongside each other and use any partitions you wanted to, and could use both the DOS/WIN Disk structures as well as the linux ones, so that while you still have the Linux filesystem of / /usr /root / home and so on, you could also use the DOS C:\ D:\hello and you could mix and match these to however you wanted, or just stick to one, and both Linux and Windows programs all worked great alongside each other and without any emulation too!
Can you imagine that? - Is it even possible?
Well check out MiNT on the Atari, because thats exactly what it does.
We can use Linux / Unix code alongside Atari programs.
So, there is some ridiculously high quality code out there.
---
Ok, cheers for this. Its certainly putting me in my place. Thanks.