Hate Windows? Want to get out?

[Mikawa Ossan]

I come to you with good news. There is an alternative to the Windows monopoly that controls your computer!

It's called Linux. Now before you run out of the door sceaming about how difficult Linux is, listen to me out.

There are different "flavors" of Linux, and some of them are very easy to use, once you get used to the differences.

One such flavor of Linux is called "Ubutu". Here is the homepage.

Advantages of Ubuntu:

-It's free.
-It's easy to install.
-You can install Ubuntu and keep Windows on the same computer!
-You can TRY A FULL WORKING VERSION before installing!!

How?

Follow the instructions on this page.

Some useful links.

Manual
Help
Ubuntu forum


I know I sound like a spammer here, but I have tried it, and I have been converted to the Linux cause. Especially after installing it on my laptop and seeing the difference between it and Windows. I was blown away!

BTW, if you decide to try it, I highly recommend setting up a dual boot configuration (This just means that you can use Windows and Ubuntu on the same computer.)

Good luck!

 

[nice gaijin]

You know, I've always wanted to get into Linux, but always had trouble getting it to install and recognize all of my hardware. This might be a nice way to get better acquainted with it.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Yeah, not all hardware is supported, but usually there is a workaround. For example, my printer had to be installed using a different driver. Of course, that's because it's an obscure printer.

The nice thing about running both Windows and Ubuntu is that if there is a device you must use but can't find a Linux driver, you can still use it in Windows.

 

[yukio_michael]

I'm going to play the devils advocate and recomend that you do -not- use linux, especially if you are someone who has never heard of it before and are looking for something simpler to use than Windows, Linux is NOT that operating system.

Linux by and large is written for computer professionals, or rather, "hobyists". Hobyists are people who will put up with lots of small inconveniences in order to have better choice & control over their opperating system. Hobyists who favour choice of product over ease of use. I'm not trying to exagerate--- browse any forum dedicated to discussion of 'reasons for using Linux' and this is probably the most common one--- Freedom of control, use, and choices... Not a bad thing, unless you realise that freedom comes at the cost of usability.

If you want to know more about compiling your kernel, compiling downloaded software in order to (best) use it--- (unlike Windows, software in Linux is provided in a number of different formats geared towards the type of processor that it is intended to run on, however there are releases of common formats, one that is generally compiled is for compatibility with a 386 computer, 386s were made some 20 years or so ago--- if that gives you any indication.... in order to get the best performance out of every package you must either make sure you get one specifically compiled for your processor, they have released 586 compatibility packages--- but most people still suggest you compile EACH AND EVERY new software that you download).

If you'd like a poor browsing experience by all means, use linux. Firefox is becoming vastly popular with people who don't have the resources or energy to keep up with the waning ie exploits--- Firefox is good for about two things, it has better extension support and better in-page search. It handles plugins misserably, and there are still a wealth (especially Japanese) pages that simply do not load properly with it.

If you want to spend A LOT OF TIME configuring your operating system, or if you look at your operating system as something like a car, something you want to open up and tinker with, by all means, get Linux, but if you'd just like to install something and have it work, avoid it at all costs.

I've got one last word for you: dependancies... Trust me, Linux is not a casual users operating system, and despite claims that it has 'improved', most people, pundits, computer enthusiasts, etc, will tell you that it definitely has failed in the consumer desktop arena, solely for providing anything to the ease of use that the oft maligned Windows provides.

Don't let me scare you away though--- it's good to have a bootable linux disc lying around just for good measure--- Knoppix is another popular bootable Linux system. I just couldn't ernestly recomend the operating system to anyone unfamiliar with it, or why they should use it.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Well, Linux, Ubuntu included, is not as easy to use as Windows. Nowhere near, really. But I have been sick of Windows for years. I hate how Windows uses your computer. I hate how much advertising there is, including adware, etc. I hate how you have to have a long activation code for Windows software. I hate more things about Windows than that.

Linux opens up new problems, to be sure, but it removes my Windows problems. Nothing is perfect, and the extra effort in configuring, etc is worth it to me.

This thread is, after all, aimed at those who are sick of Windows and want to try something else without removing Windows from their computers. The main thing is, SICK OF WINDOWS!!

 

[RockLee]

@Yukio Micheal: I couldn't have said it better Linux is nice, but not so easy to use if you don't even know how to install a new kernel


Oh btw, buying a Mac is a nice alternative too ;-) If you have the money.

 

[leonmarino]

Oh btw, buying a Mac is a nice alternative too ;-) If you have the money.

I was raised with a Mac.. Good old days.. But the last ten years I've been using Windows because of the better availability of software and simply because everyone uses it! In the days of Win95 and Win98 I experienced lot of problems with it, but to be honest I don't mind windows now.. Actually my laptop hasn't froze just once yet! And I use my laptop for everything from work to entertainment.

 

[yukio_michael]

I think a lot of different systems have their strengths and their weaknesses, unfortunately, and you see this a lot in the mac & linux communities, people will try to stress the weaknesses of the other OS while toutings the strengths of their own favoured OS, completely omiting it's OWN weaknesses...

I'm pretty open minded, and I have run and used Linux before, its gotten much better, and with the newest kernel, you shouldn't need to muck about too much w/ compiling it...

I don't see a lot of Windows users going out of their way to talk smack about how bad Linux & Mac are, but there are a wealth of forums out there full of diehard Linux and Mac users who seemingly take great joy in discussing how the next version of Windows will fail in this or that way, or is copying this or that feature of the Mac... To me a computer isn't a social or moral choice, it isn't related to some great fight against big brother--- it's just a tool, and if it works well for me, with a modicum of style, I use it.

The best thing about Mac now is with the new Apple Bootcamp project, a project that suspiciouslly followed a public contest to get Windows Xp to succussfully boot on a Intel based Mac*, you can have the best of both worlds and run Windows on the same machine you use for OSX, without any form of emulation.

*Windows XP initially had problems running on the new Intel based macs since the macs use a form of low-level device & hd detection called EFI, instead of the normal BIOS that Windows is used to... This genius, in a famos "Dewey defeats Truman" style, seems to claim that XP will never work on Mac for just this reason... well, turns out if you offer a cash prize to hackers, SOMEONE will make it work... Apple followed quickly therafter with it's official (though beta) Boot Camp project, and here we are. Hell, I'm sure the adventurous could even cram a copy of Linux on there.

 

[acquiredtarget]

Heh, I'm actually using Ubuntu right now. Linux, like any other operating system has its quirks (ok,ok, challenges). I use all three operating systems Windows, Mac OS X (well until recently that is ) and Ubuntu. I think all three have their strengths and weaknesses. The nice thing with Ubuntu (and many other Linux distros), as the OP mentioned, you can boot to a live CD and run the OS with an install. If you decide to try it out, get a copy of Beginning Ubuintu Linux by Keir Thomas (link). Pretty useful book for a switcher. But in the end, try them all out and see which one you're the most productive in and enjoy (and understand that all three do things a little differently)

 

[namakemono]

I love Mac

I love MacOSX. It's a very useful. But I don't know UBUNTU.Thank you for telling me.
I'm very interesting it.

 

[dreamer]

Errr... up til now I've always had a hard time installing linux... (but it's my fault really for tring distribs like debian or slackware)
The last version I installed was a gentoo and it took me like 3 days before I managed to have the sound, KDE, a new kernel, etc... >_<
Still ubuntu is indeed incredibly easy to install, and if you're using your computer only for work or the internet, then you should try it.

 

[RockLee]

It took me a day to install gentoo....but I got as far as the point where I had to install the other disc with KDE That's where it ended, I'll try again today

 

[kohlrak]

There is actually a free 64bit based operating system out there... I'm not sure, but it looks like a free windows(ish) operating system. It's coded completely in assembly, therefor, it will run faster than windows, and most likely even faster than linux. But, it's a 64 bit OS and i don't know for sure if it'll work on a 32 bit processor, which is what most people have right now. I'm thinking about making an "OSless API" for people out there who are sick of the OS delemma and want to make games and such that don't require an operating system, and before you say that it's impossible... It's not impossible. It's something that should have been done a long time ago, but wasn't. For games, it would take alot of the OS clutter out of the system and give alot more ram to use for the game. You would have more hardware access rights (which can be dangerous for newbies) which shall provide much faster workings and such. Once i complete it, i estimate at least 20 years before it is put out of service and needs small revisions. When you think about it, it's actually how they make gaming systems like xboxes or such work. Once this project is complete, perhaps it'll get more promotion and become a standard.

 

[RockLee]

Hmm, never heard of a FREE 64bit OS besides Linux :?
Don't think you can make an OS in 1,2,3...I took other people YEARS ,and they were in a team ;-)

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Perhaps he is referring to the BSD project?

 

[kohlrak]

I do beleive it's called menuetOS or something along those lines.

I know, but that's not quite what i'm attempting. I'm sure you're familiar with "ASM." Basically, the idea would be to come up with an OpenGL like DLL, that dosn't require an OS. Then create a small Fmod like DLL that dosn't require an OS. Then build a small filesystem thing to deal with files. Then work on a few games and such for it taking advantage of the freedom. Other developers would eventually catch on to this and with time it would become popular. At that time, companies which make hardware would gain a particular intrest in it, and start releasing drivers and developer information for the developers of this OSless thing. It's like an OS, but it's not an OS. At that point, the BIOS would be the only issue (if you'd even consider it an issue) and development would be quite intresting from that point. The hard part will be the initial days before the drivers... therefor, you'll have to make some of it based on an OS and include "better coded" versions of the OS itself. Typically, you could copy some of windows, and rewrite the code so it works faster (since windows isn't completely coded in ASM) and change a few things about it so it dosn't violate any patents or such. Of course this project would take years, but in the end it would pay off. If such a thing kicked off well enough, processors for PCs following the x86 family will be based on the x86, so portability won't be comprimised. Basically, it's a bunch of disassembling, reading, editing, and reassembling after you understand the concepts.

 

[dreamer]

Well there is a 64bits version of windows XP and a free trial of vista 64 as well, but I can't say anything about the drivers though...
@RockLee: for your gentoo, I'm not sure if you tried a total recompilation of KDE on a PIII 650, but that's what took me 1.5day, that and the fact I had to download all the tarballs...(yeah stage1 sux when you're a noob...really) ^^;

 

[kohlrak]

Well there is a 64bits version of windows XP and a free trial of vista 64 as well, but I can't say anything about the drivers though...

The real question will be if it's compatable with 32 bit. lol I heard 64 bit xp sucked compared to the 32 bit (in other words, it didn't have the same features or something) and vista supposedly will be used pretty much to promote 64 bit processors, so chances are that the 32 bit version will be "crappy" like the 64 bit xp.

 

[dreamer]

Whatever, I won't buy Vista and prolly go on Linux...hated the vista trial...

 

[RockLee]

I used it too, and indeed it sucks (literally sucks actually, memory that is).
Oh well, I hope they'll make it more stable and not so much resource-consuming as the béta was.