Windows Vista: Ready? I think not.

[GX1_Man]

Another good point.  Although, can I ask why it's always XP Pro that is assumed to be pirated?
As soon as anyone says XP Pro your first question is "Is it genuine?"
Why this suspicion for XP Pro and not other OSes, such as XP Home, Media Centre, or 2k?

Because XP Pro does not come standard on most commercial machines - Dell, Compaq, eMachines, etc. for the home user. It would have to be purchased for $100 + dollars more and this seems incongruent with a machine that no doubt came with another similar OS (XP Home) already loaded. True, it can be special ordered with some machines, but a majority of people that post with problems either have a non bootable CD or seem to have misplaced something they spent over $100 for. It just doesn't add up. Sometimes deep into a thread the truth just "happens" to come out, as I'm sure you have observed. Most pirate and warez sites have a great amount of XP Pro things to download, Home is seldom seen there.

As Computer Hope does not support pirating software, it is important to get this out early in the discussion. A bootleg copy can cause problems initially or eventually

[Calum]

OK, I was just wondering why XP pro was always pirated and not others.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Edit: Spelling mistake.

[panboy]

Well i don't think iv ever payed for Ms software, I'm going to give Vista Final A try soon see how it pans out, the key reason i don't use Linux is because it wont play my games and all the interfaces suck.

MicroSoft spend allot of money on R&D to make the interface look appealing and the Linux Community spends how much on R&D?
Sure a heavy duty computer user will have no real problem using Linux , if they put in the effort to get rid of all the extras that fill out the start menu, or maybe they'll run things from the terminal. but to you average office worker Windows is nice and Easy. and thats what makes it better.

it is not superior in any other way.

and Linux has the problem of compatibility with so many different distros writing a program for Linux as a whole is almost impossible

[Dilbert]

I'll get Vista when Service Pack 1... thousand... comes out. Until then, I'll keep XP.

[GX1_Man]

The key reason i don't use Linux is because it wont play my games and all the interfaces suck.

When did you last try it? Of course there are issues with running some sort of emulator to run another operating system's software. That has always been the case.

For those who are not into games, of course, this is NOT an issue. ALL of the interfaces suck? What interfaces are you refering to?

MicroSoft spend allot of money on R&D to make the interface look appealing and the Linux Community spends how much on R&D?

That money is made from people who BUY their software by the way.  

Linux is not a company, and as such there is no central development and R&D budget. Each distribution has their own way of doing business, but it is not and never will be on the scope of a Microsoft.

Sure a heavy duty computer user will have no real problem using Linux , if they put in the effort to get rid of all the extras that fill out the start menu, or maybe they'll run things from the terminal. but to you average office worker Windows is nice and Easy. and thats what makes it better.

This is an old comment from years ago, almost always given by people who have never actually used Linux, or at least not recently. Again, when is the last time you actually used a Linux system? What version?

it is not superior in any other way.

Wrong-o. What about a secure and free operating system, free software, no viruses and spyware just for starts?

and Linux has the problem of compatibility with so many different distros writing a program for Linux as a whole is almost impossible

Some distros use different methods of installations for historical reasons, but any .deb file can ge installed on a Debian based system, any .rpm can be installed on a RedHat or similar system, etc.

We can debate this some more, but I sense your mind is already made up. Now if you were PAYING for Windows vs. using Linux for free (and legal) you may have a different outlook also.

Cheers.

[SilentAssasin64]

it is not superior in any other way.

Isn't it something like 80% of all web servers are running some sort of *nix?  I don't know the exact number but it's pretty close to that isn't it?  If some one knows just go ahead and correct me.

[panboy]

sorry guys you miss read the last part

(Windows)
is not superior in any other way.

Mostly windows is better purley on interface

"That money is made from people who BUY their software by the way.   " I know its great ain't it.
 
"Linux is not a company, and as such there is no central development and R&D budget. Each distribution has their own way of doing business, but it is not and never will be on the scope of a Microsoft. "

Ive used ubunto recently, its all right but its still a hostel to make sure you have everything you need to run the programs you want.
Sure it has "aptget" that will automatically download all the library's that you need but you first need to set up aptget to work.

Gnome and KDE are the interfaces Ive tyred to use, and relay there not that bad , but on mandrake and on Knoppix the just seemed to be flooded with superfluous aps or multiple programs that did the same things.

its really the same Reason i don't like fire fox, there are just to many options for the little things and not enough options for the big things

Linux as an OS would be fine , if the distros Ive tryed didn't come with some much crap as standard.

I dont dislike linux it just dosent have a role in my home computing wants. i have no home computing needs.
If i were to run a dedicated server i would use linux

[GX1_Man]

Some do come with an overabundance of apps, but it is hard to predict what each individual user might want. It is easy to pick and choos eduring the install or delete them later.

As Windows does not come standard with much (unless you really like notepad) you can spend a lot of cash getting the functionality of a base Linux system.

[panboy]

but there is an open source comuity for windows as well, most programs can be found for free (many of which are also in linux) like open office

[steelegbr]

but there is an open source comuity for windows as well, most programs can be found for free (many of which are also in linux) like open office

What I find is most people will go to this stage. Downloading free software for Windows.

Given Linux most people would ask questions like What happened to this computer? and Where's Microsoft...? It would be a pain in the rear end for any large business to retrain their staff to use the terminals.

From what I've seen, my employer has moved on to linux for the POS computers. It works as you are using an interface you've been trained to use and follows a similar design to the old system. You are not having to find a word processor, spreadsheet, etc. It runs only one program that is automatically loaded on boot. So it is possible sometimes...

As for Vista, it's actually becoming a major selling point on computers (the free upgrade). I've tried it out and although it's resource heavy it does the job. Microsoft have put the effort in here (especially to the look and feel).

[GX1_Man]

But Linux is so much more than a terminal for text mode only.

Vista will succeed, of course, because of bundling and marketing. Good or bad will be left up to the public to decide, but it is good for the hardware business in particular and the economy in general.  

[Zylstra]

Sorry, I haven't had enough time to read the whole topic....

I disagree.

Yes, its more than obvious that you would need more RAM and CPU power.
We do not know if Microsoft is deciding to stretch their requirements so that you can be sure that you can have plenty of background programs running.

I am a user of Windows operating systems. I do know that Windows XP requires 128 MB RAM, but I have seen it run on less and still work quite well.

It depends on what you are installing on your system.

Expect it to run if you fill it up with junk.

I must disagree about going with Linux as a complete alternative.
Though many manufacturers of hardware and software are slowly but surely increasing Linux support, there are more program and more options with Windows than Linux.
Give me a version of Linux that offers everything that Windows offers including support of executable files, and I will really consider switching.

But until then, I think I will stick to Microsoft Windows, specifically for easy document processing and file support.

Just don't go to Macs

[GX1_Man]

I am a user of Windows operating systems. I do know that Windows XP requires 128 MB RAM, but I have seen it run on less and still work quite well.

I have seen it run on 128 RAM and it is SLOW and thrashes the disk. Definitely it does NOT run quite well. It runs, but that's about it.

I must disagree about going with Linux as a complete alternative.
Though many manufacturers of hardware and software are slowly but surely increasing Linux support, there are more program and more options with Windows than Linux.
Give me a version of Linux that offers everything that Windows offers[highlight] including support of executable files[/highlight], and I will really consider switching.

That is a Windows specific thing, so don't EVER expect to see that in a non-Windows distribution.

The only thing that Linux is not up to snuff on is gaming (and of course these are written for the Windows platform. No Wonder.) If you want insist on running Windows programs you are really stuck to a Windows OS.

For anything else, Linux has 99% of what you need, plus many advantages.

Most people don't like the learning curve.

[linuxlover]

With an easy to use OS like Kubuntu, there isnt much of a learning curve. The file structure is different and the way you click is a bit different. So long as you have XFCE4 or KDE you will have no problem using it. The main problem is installing programs. You either need to be a Linux expert or you need to use a package manager. I've unsuccessfully installed programs in root mode by copying to the \bin\ directory.

[steelegbr]

Just don't go to Macs

Macs are a whole different story (I appologise now for going slightly off topic).

They do have a learning curve (not as big as some distributions of linux in my opinion) but Macs have their uses, mainly in the audio and graphics fields.

If you're never going to do those things then you've got a point.

The main problem is installing programs. You either need to be a Linux expert or you need to use a package manager. I've unsuccessfully installed programs in root mode by copying to the \bin\ directory.

A very good point. I spent quite a while trying to figue out how to install stuff on a linux system. Quite often you have to use the command line unless your distribution supports a rpm type system. Which would you rather have a list of commands to install something or simply double click on the icon?

Back to Vista... On the beta runs I did with it, if you use less than the required hardware it will run slowly. Even after turning off the high performance graphics and sidebar stuff.