Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
paulWTAMU wrote:What's the real advantage though, if she still has to dual boot? That's what ultimately wound up killing Linux for me.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Was she P.O.'ed at Windows 7 or at some ancient operating system from a decade ago? Ubuntu today is nearly as good as Windows was 9 or 10 years ago.
So I've talked my youngest daughter (she's 18) into giving Linux a shot as her desktop OS. She plays PC games only occasionally these days, and is certainly willing to deal with dual-booting on those rare occasions where she needs a gaming fix.
I went with Ubuntu 10.04 -- as their latest LTS release, it should (in theory at least) be a little more stable, which ought to give a better impression for a first-time Linux user. Just got done installing it a little while ago; it is set up to dual-boot with her existing Windows XP installation.
I would say that it is an improvement over XP SP3 (which is what it is replacing),
mmmmmdonuts21 wrote:JBI - How tech savvy is your daughter? If she games, I am guessing she must be more tech savvy than the majority of the people who use computers. I am not sure how well Ubuntu would work on other people who are less familiar with computers. (like my parents, who use Windows and Office at work, I think using Ubuntu, and LibreOffice at home would confuse them)
cphite wrote:I would say that it is an improvement over XP SP3 (which is what it is replacing),
Except for the part about it not running all the stuff she wants to run
just brew it! wrote:
I don' think Linux would go over particularly well with my parents (Dad is amazingly tech savvy for someone in his 8th decade but I still think it would be too much of a disruption, and Mom would just freak), older daughter (way too dependent on Office '07 for work-related stuff), or son (heavy FPS gamer). It might be an option for my wife; at least it would prevent her from getting all those malware infections!
cphite wrote:Except for the part about it not running all the stuff she wants to run
I can certainly see not wanting to run Vista on older hardware (I'm actually one of those rare folks who is happy with Vista, at least on decent hardware) but in all honesty, I've just never seen the point of dual-boot setups. For me the time spent rebooting when I want to run certain things, or messing about to find replacements for apps that I use in one versus the other outweighs any minor (and let's be honest, they're minor if they exist at all) performance increases.
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
What gets me is the attitude that shows up in things like the assertion that Linux is a decade behind Windows or that it has major gaps or why use it when you still need to keep Windows handy or whatnot.
The current state of Linux, like with Ubuntu, is that of a state of the art OS that installs easily, just works, and comes with applications for most common needs bundled in. You don't have to worry about licensing issues. Updates and system maintenance are trivial matters. The risks of system corruption from external attacks and most internal misbehavior is significantly reduced.
Of course, you can find exceptions and flaws. You can do that with any OS so parading them as deficiencies is, IMHO, rather dishonest. There are indeed some applications for specific purposes that are not readily available for Linux but that need is easily handled as most distributions install with dual boot capability. - that contrasts with the fact that most Linux applications are cross platform which has its own advantages.
The question, for me, is why some are so stuck on a particular platform that they troll discussions like this and seem unable to see or understand other points of view.
Kurotetsu wrote:JBI, when you set up the dual boot did you install Linux first then Windows? Or did you leave the current Windows install alone and install Linux?
cphite wrote:There are times when Ubuntu can be a real pain in the butt to get working properly. Yes, this also happens with Windows - but it happens a lot more often in the Linux world, and, generally requires more time and effort (and expertise) to fix when it does happen.
JustAnEngineer wrote:My point wasn't that Ubuntu Linux is bad compared to Windows XP. My point was that Windows XP is bad compared to the current state of Microsoft's art which is Windows 7. 9½ years is a very long time in the tech world.
Have the anti-Windows zealots spent as much time with Windows 7 64-bit?
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
JustAnEngineer wrote:Have the anti-Windows zealots spent as much time with Windows 7 64-bit?
that I really can't stand Open Office (for various reasons) and need Office 20xx installed :/
paulWTAMU wrote:If I didn't like gaming so much I'd switch to Linux at home pretty easily at this point; Ubuntu has it's quirks but they're not that huge. I just don't understand the whole point of dual booting without significant performance gains (which it seems like she gets using Linux so power to her).
The only reasons I would switch (again if gaming weren't an issue) are performance and price...and if you have to get a copy of the current windows anyway price goes out the equation.
JustAnEngineer wrote:My point wasn't that Ubuntu Linux is bad compared to Windows XP. My point was that Windows XP is bad compared to the current state of Microsoft's art which is Windows 7. 9½ years is a very long time in the tech world.
Have the anti-Windows zealots spent as much time with Windows 7 64-bit?
stmok wrote:Today, I don't use Windows as my full time OS like I did back in 2005. Its currently regulated in a virtual machine (Guest OS in VirtualBox) for minor roles. It rarely gets used.
Then again, I don't play computer games and see computing as a tool for solving problems.
paulWTAMU wrote:that I really can't stand Open Office (for various reasons) and need Office 20xx installed :/
I liked the word processor, couldn't stand the spreadsheet though. ALthough for home useage, eh. I think it'd work.
just brew it! wrote:paulWTAMU wrote:that I really can't stand Open Office (for various reasons) and need Office 20xx installed :/
I liked the word processor, couldn't stand the spreadsheet though. ALthough for home useage, eh. I think it'd work.
Bottom line is, in a MS-centric corporate environment you can't completely get away from using MS Office. The document portability -- while it is much improved and good enough for casual use -- still isn't quite up to snuff. And if you need to look at MS Visio or Project files, there isn't even a half-working solution (that I'm aware of...) on the Linux side.
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?