NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

DOS....:p

Both. Dual-booting.

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

Do you have any experience with linux? do you have any strange peripherals you'd like to connect to it? what will you be using it for primarily? what windows programs would you miss the most?

Both. Dual-booting.

That is what I hope to do at some point. However, I'm on a bit of a budget now, and would love to save 200 dollars if there isn't some major issue with Linux that I'm unaware of.

Do you have any experience with linux? do you have any strange peripherals you'd like to connect to it? what will you be using it for primarily? what windows programs would you miss the most?

None whatsoever, but I'm looking to get it here. If I really can't get the hang of it, I'll just suck it up and buy windows. Strange peripherals... Printer, Camera, and iPod really. I was hoping to use one of the variety of programs to run windows programs on linux to run these. I'll just be using it for basic desktop use, and I'd probably miss iTunes the most.

None whatsoever, but I'm looking to get it here. If I really can't get the hang of it, I'll just suck it up and buy windows. Strange peripherals... Printer, Camera, and iPod really. I was hoping to use one of the variety of programs to run windows programs on linux to run these. I'll just be using it for basic desktop use, and I'd probably miss iTunes the most.

Linux cons:
Steep learning curve (but since you're building your own computer I imagine you're literate enough to figure it out)
Simple things such as installing a program that should be ridiculously easy can sometimes be a real pain in the ass. On the upside once you succeed it feels like a real accomplishment! :)
Shoddy hardware support for anything other than the most basic. Since all you have is a camera, printer, and ipod, all of these should work fine with relatively easy setup.
Linux pros:
You never have to worry about viruses again.
Programs are all free, and despite what M$ would have you believe, there are some really powerful ones out there.
You will wonder how you ever got by without a terminal.
It's not windows!
Very customizable, cool programs, etc.

If you do go with linux, make sure to choose a distro that has yum - you don't want to deal with dependencies at this stage in the game, and compiling is a bitch.

That's all I can think of for now. I'll assume you're already familiar with windows, so I'll leave it out. My vote is for linux, obviously.

If you want to play games then use Windows.
If you absolutely must use, say, MS Office instead of Open Office... Windows.
Any other software that isn't available, or doesn't have a functional equivalent available, for Linux... You get the idea.

It's sometimes possible to get Windows apps working on Linux (see WINE - "WINE Is Not An Emulator"), but some just don't play nice, and WINE is sometimes broken for some things in some versions (games particularly are hit'n'miss, in my meagre experience), and it's not particularly newbie friendly.

If you just want to use OpenOffice for normal, boring stuff, use The GIMP for image editing, watch DVDs and listen to music, and none of your hardware's very unusual, Linux should work just fine.

You can always download and try Linux, and if you don't like it buy Windows afterwards... $200 for XP Home seems steep, though; can't you get an OEM version? I'd expect it to be half that. Or less, knowing how $->£ conversions tend to go.

Edit:
Linux pros:
Programs are all free

That's not quite true, there is some Linux software you have to pay for. Cedega (a version of WINE specialised to run DirectX games), for instance. Mostly they're free.

Yeah, but try playing games on Linux.

Edit:

That's not quite true, there is some Linux software you have to pay for. Cedega (a version of WINE specialised to run DirectX games), for instance. Mostly they're free.

Yeah, and Crossover Office or whatever, but dammit! can't a man generalize around here?

OS/2 or MS-DOS.;)

Get linux if you want everything free and not get hacked so easily but at the risk of having zero customer support and not being able to get off the shelf software. And picking which version of Linux? I'd get Ubuntu personally.

Oh, and try getting older people to learn Linux when they have been using Windows for a while ...

If you get Windows, get Windows XP SP2, Vista Home Premium or Vista Business (if you like your networking).

Get Linux if you want untold hours of frustration trying to get one piece of important hardware, such as a wireless LAN card, working, before giving up and spending six days trying to get your hard drives fixed after the butchering Linux installations do to the MBR.

Go straight to Windows if you want to avoid the mess of installing Linux only to uninstall it within a few days/hours due to frustration and inexperience.

Get Linux if you want untold hours of frustration trying to get one piece of important hardware, such as a wireless LAN card, working, before giving up and spending six days trying to get your hard drives fixed after the butchering Linux installations do to the MBR.

I had exactly the same problem.

Annoyingly, the best solution I could find to the wifi card problem was "download this from here and install it". How? That's the reason I need my wifi card :rolleyes:

And yeah...I still haven't got my hard drive back in order, or the MBR fixed. Gave up trying after a while, but by some piece of sheer luck (I have no idea how I changed it, I was just fiddling and it worked) it now has XP as the first in the boot list, so it's not too annoying, just adds 30 seconds to boot time. I don't have a windows disk (thanks, OEM distribution), so I don't have recovery console to fix the MBR with, or the windows installer to fix the Linux partition with. 50gigs wasted there.

Linux is great if you can get everything working right, and if you don't have Windows-only software (games are one example, but not the only one).

Linux can also be a major PITA to install, and if it breaks, be prepared to spend a long time on forums being told to "RTFM n00b".

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

I think Linux would be great, if you sucess it.

I had exactly the same problem.

Annoyingly, the best solution I could find to the wifi card problem was "download this from here and install it". How? That's the reason I need my wifi card :rolleyes:

And yeah...I still haven't got my hard drive back in order, or the MBR fixed. Gave up trying after a while, but by some piece of sheer luck (I have no idea how I changed it, I was just fiddling and it worked) it now has XP as the first in the boot list, so it's not too annoying, just adds 30 seconds to boot time.

It's happened to me multiple times with multiple distributions. Every now and again I say "I wonder if Linux is ready for the desktop yet", and install it.

First time (around 2001, I think) I installed Redhat, but it didn't support my modem or my router. It fucked up the MBR.

Second time, I tried Suse (around 2003, I think). As above.

Third time, I tried Ubuntu (about three weeks ago). It didn't support my wireless LAN, but I managed to connect through the wired LAN card, which let me try to find support. Apparently my card should work, but it doesn't. It fucked up the MBR.

Ultimately, though, I formatted Ubuntu because the scroll wheel on my mouse didn't work and I need it! Things like that should just work! This is apparently something Linux zealots completely fail to grasp.

If Linux was designed by normal people, for normal people, rather than by nerds for nerds, it'd be a whole lot better.

IMO Ubuntu is fucking ugly, so I'd never buy it (and I have had to use it for the last two weeks. Finally back to a windows computer).

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

Where the hell do you spend 200 on xp home? newegg has it for less then a hundred

Personally I choose debian over all others lighter faster then ubuntu with all the features if you know what you are doing

Now I have done a tone in linux probably more then most but I know where its limitations lie, I use it heavy for servers and stuff for work but if I plan on gaming cedaga just is not good enough for my needs

IMO Ubuntu is fucking ugly, so I'd never buy it (and I have had to use it for the last two weeks. Finally back to a windows computer).

Well, there is that too. I think both KDE and Gnome are fugly, and the majority of other windowing systems unweildy and unintuitive.

IMO Ubuntu is fucking ugly, so I'd never buy it (and I have had to use it for the last two weeks. Finally back to a windows computer).

How bout Kubuntu or Xubuntu?

Well, there is that too. I think both KDE and Gnome are fugly, and the majority of other windowing systems unweildy and unintuitive.

I find them fairly useful the only one I have never got into is fluxbox ... but right click app launch is addicting in like xfce

I find them fairly useful the only one I have never got into is fluxbox ... but right click app launch is addicting in like xfce

Out of the box a well designed interface should lead you, rather than vice versa. I shouldn't have to guess what things do, things should tell me what they do. Only once that initial introduction is passed should I be given the option to customise the GUI to my poweruser tastes.

If you do go with linux, make sure to choose a distro that has yum - you don't want to deal with dependencies at this stage in the game, and compiling is a bitch.


You don't want to use a yum distro. Any good distro takes care of dependencies for you, not just one with yum, so Ubuntu is a good choice.

If you're serious about wanting to learn Linux in-depth, as in how it works, where stuff is, how to fix stuff, or if some of your hardware doesn't work and you need better support than the Ubuntu forums, go with Gentoo. If you want something that works, go with Ubuntu.

Out of the box a well designed interface should lead you, rather than vice versa. I shouldn't have to guess what things do, things should tell me what they do. Only once that initial introduction is passed should I be given the option to customise the GUI to my poweruser tastes.
I did not have to guess with gnome really any more then I did for windows my first time to be honest ... xfce the same

Flux and some of the others I agree but most of the big ones were intuitive, at least as much as anything else I have used

I'm thinking that I'll try out Linux with a Live CD run on my current computer, and, if I like it, I'll install it when I build a new one. If that doesn't work, I can always just clear the hard drive and suck it up and buy windows. Which, I clearly didn't look very hard for prices, since it seems to be much less than I thought. Thanks everyone!

I did not have to guess with gnome really any more then I did for windows my first time to be honest ... xfce the same

Flux and some of the others I agree but most of the big ones were intuitive, at least as much as anything else I have used

The current out of the box usability of Gnome reminds me of Windows 95. It's all there, it just needs to be presented better. Programmers need to remember that users don't want to use their OS/app. It's simply a tool used to get work done. The more time a user spends trying to figure out HOW to get work done, the less well designed the interface is. The interface should be as transparent as possible, nudging the user in the best direction whenever possible.

The current out of the box usability of Gnome reminds me of Windows 95. It's all there, it just needs to be presented better. Programmers need to remember that users don't want to use their OS/app. It's simply a tool used to get work done. The more time a user spends trying to figure out HOW to get work done, the less well designed the interface is.
Again I am not a big gnome user
But xfce personally I did not spend any more time learning then any other interface I have ever used ... in fact it was easier for me then something like OSX to transition to at first

I use Windows XP SP2 on my laptop and work desktop, and it's the one for me at the moment. I've installed Vista Business on a Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 and despite some of it's really annoy features - I like it (pity about the disk space usage of Vista).

I have throw out some copies of Redhat 6.2, yuck.

Again I am not a big gnome user
But xfce personally I did not spend any more time learning then any other interface I have ever used ... in fact it was easier for me then something like OSX to transition to at first

Well, I've never used xfce so I don't have an opinion of it. However, I dislike OSX's annoyingly bad design faults. For example, clicking the close button inside an application doesn't close the application, it just hides it in the dock. Inexperienced users therefore end up with hundreds of apps running in the background while being completely oblivious to the reasons why their machine is running so slow. Shiny design != good design.

Well, I've never used xfce so I don't have an opinion of it. However, I dislike OSX's annoyingly bad design faults. For example, clicking the close button inside an application doesn't close the application, it just hides it in the dock. Inexperienced users therefore end up with hundreds of apps running in the background while being completely oblivious to the reasons why their machine is running so slow. Shiny design != good design.

Ohh I absolutely feel ya there 100 percent

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/computers/work.jpg (big pic small server)

Thats xfce, note its design is not flashy but minimal while being windows intuitive for the most part

Designed to be ultra light on resources but not as clunky as flux or some of the others

I think I got that one you are looking at running on about 40 -70 megs of ram used total with apache running

Ohh I absolutely feel ya there 100 percent

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/computers/work.jpg (big pic small server)

Thats xfce, note its design is not flashy but minimal while being windows intuitive for the most part

Designed to be ultra light on resources but not as clunky as flux or some of the others

I think I got that one you are looking at running on about 40 -70 megs of ram used total with apache running

Vista is your main OS there? :D

Ohh I absolutely feel ya there 100 percent

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/computers/work.jpg (big pic small server)

Thats xfce, note its design is not flashy but minimal while being windows intuitive for the most part

Designed to be ultra light on resources but not as clunky as flux or some of the others

I think I got that one you are looking at running on about 40 -70 megs of ram used total with apache running

It's impossible to judge GUIs from pictures alone. Do you know of any live CD distros that include xfce as an optional windowing system?

Vista is your main OS there? :D

Work yup ... no better way to prep for the flood of questions then by actually using it

I like linux even though I understand its not a one size fits all by any means, and I have to support my users who are overwhelmingly windows

And on that note I dont really mind vista

It's impossible to judge GUIs from pictures alone. Do you know of any live CD distros that include xfce as an optional windowing system?

Believe xubuntu comes up with it default

To be honest I always hand build, only use bootables for password cracks and data recovery lol

Open source! Yay!

I've never used Linux, but it sounds great!

Work yup ... no better way to prep for the flood of questions then by actually using it

I like linux even though I understand its not a one size fits all by any means, and I have to support my users who are overwhelmingly windows

And on that note I dont really mind vista

Playing with Vista Business, great networking features. I hate UAC ...

Playing with Vista Business, great networking features. I hate UAC ...

Agreed we have enterprise at work

It's impossible to judge GUIs from pictures alone. Do you know of any live CD distros that include xfce as an optional windowing system?
It's the default on Xubuntu.

Well I like Windows, mainly because of its great handling, for lack of a better word, for most tasks. Installing being the main one; I often go through a load of computer games and Linux is a lot worse at installation of programs then Windows (which is pretty much clicking the yes button a couple times).

Linux

Pros:
Viruses, spyware, getting hacked, etc, etc.
There is allot of choice in the Linux world.
Low memory usage. Even with a 64bit edition, you shouldn't need more that 512MiB, unless you intend on doing allot of graphics work or rendering or compiling.
With the exception of HAL, the Kernel and the init system (feel free to ask what those are), you do not have to restart when you install/update a piece of software.
When things work nicely, it tends to be incredibly slick.
Projects release updates often.
Version numbers tend to have a bit more meaning.

Cons:
There is allot of choice in the Linux world.
When things don't work well it is a disaster.
Very few companies write Linux drivers, and the ones that do rarely have one ready by the project's launch. With the exception of wireless and video cards, most hardware does have a driver in the kernel after a month or so.
MP3/WMV/MP4/etc has to be set up afterwards.
The filesystem is going to seem fucked at first. However, it doesn't change every release like it does on Windows.
When you get 'technical support' you have to ask for it on a webforum. There is pay tech support, but more than likely you'll end up on the forums asking for help.

Other notes:
If you do decide to use Linux do not by an ATI graphics card, unless your are masochist. Get a nvidia or an Intel 950 or 965. The Nvidia will obviously perform better, but you will not have to set up the Intel.
Installing application is going to be quite different. Instead of the usually "search the net, download an executable, run executable, answer questions in a wizard, install, enjoy" routine, on Linux you will "open package manager, search database for packages, select packages you want, install, enjoy". There is some software you have to search the web for (eg. Nvidia drivers, wireless drivers, alpha/beta software, illegal software) which varies. You could just run the executables, answer questions, install, enjoy (eg. Nvidia drivers); double click the package, press the install button, enjoy(mostly the illegal software, sometimes the beta software); or compile the bloody thing(wireless drivers, alpha/beta software).
You'll also notice that I put "allot of choice" as both a pro and a con. When I say there is allot of choice, I mean allot. Keeping yourself from getting overwhelmed is a challenge. Just remember, you only have to choose what you want to choose. Typically, most people don't go much past a DE, music player, and theme. If you want to, you can choose to rearrange the panels, install a '3D' window manager, or even change your init system.

EDIT: I was going to do a pros/cons thing on Windows but was too lazy.

Well I like Windows, mainly because of its great handling, for lack of a better word, for most tasks. Installing being the main one; I often go through a load of computer games and Linux is a lot worse at installation of programs then Windows (which is pretty much clicking the yes button a couple times).
I have one line

apt-get install programname

I do not have to go to the internet
I do not have to look for it ... it goes gets it for me and installs it

I have one line

apt-get install programname

I do not have to go to the internet
I do not have to look for it ... it goes gets it for me and installs it
Or if the command line scares you, open up a package manager, type in programname, click the box beside programname and select install, and press the install button.

I have one line

apt-get install programname

I do not have to go to the internet
I do not have to look for it ... it goes gets it for me and installs it

That reminded me of something I forgot. When you get 'tech support' you will get shell commands. They could tell you how to get things done using only gui's but a) a single command could take a short paragraph to explain using the Gui and b) it leaves no ambiguity. You copy and paste it, and you are done. If you have ever given someone computer help over MSN or the telephone, you probably know what I mean. You explain something perfectly (in your mind), and they go "What xxxx?" or "Well, how do I do that?". There is very little room for user error in copying and pasting a command into a terminal.

Playing with Vista Business, great networking features. I hate UAC ...

I turn UAC off. Regarding linux vs windows, just try out the fedora distribution. If you like it and can get your stuff working, great. If not, windows time. KDE is a reasonable GUI.

Linux

Other notes:
If you do decide to use Linux do not by an ATI graphics card, unless your are masochist.

Well, rules out putting Linux on my laptop with an ATI X1700.

Well, rules out putting Linux on my laptop with an ATI X1700.
The driver ATI puts out is probably worse than nothing.

The driver ATI puts out is probably worse than nothing.

ATI Windows drivers are pretty bad as they are.

That reminded me of something I forgot. When you get 'tech support' you will get shell commands. They could tell you how to get things done using only gui's but a) a single command could take a short paragraph to explain using the Gui and b) it leaves no ambiguity. You copy and paste it, and you are done. If you have ever given someone computer help over MSN or the telephone, you probably know what I mean. You explain something perfectly (in your mind), and they go "What xxxx?" or "Well, how do I do that?". There is very little room for user error in copying and pasting a command into a terminal.

To be honest I started CLI and it is VERY rare for me to use a gui to get anything done

I remember FIGHTING my first time with an ubuntu box to find the config file to switch my default gui from Gnome to XFCE ... after an hour and a couple of questions I found out there was a "session" button on login that you can select it

Pfft gui's lol

ATI Windows drivers are pretty bad as they are.
In some cases, Intel integrated graphics is faster than ATI.

Overall it is about half as fast as the Windows driver, when nvidia is equal on both platforms.

That's not mentioning all the bugs and the things it is missing.

The driver ATI puts out is probably worse than nothing.

Unless I am doing something speciffic I leave the vessa ones

Unless I am doing something speciffic I leave the vessa ones
I use fglrx, because I usually have Beryl going. The last release WSOD on me, and it will be a while before they put out a release because of the merge. Compiz, if it even works, is too glitchy to use.

I use fglrx, because I usually have Beryl going. The last release WSOD on me, and it will be a while before they put out a release because of the merge. Compiz, if it even works, is too glitchy to use.

I understand ... I just normaly do some very basic gui stuff so not nessisary for me

I understand ... I just normaly do some very basic gui stuff so not nessisary for me
I install bling for the sake of bling.

Also, planning to get two new HDD's soon. My current /home is 91% full, and / is about half full.

I install bling for the sake of bling.

Also, planning to get two new HDD's soon. My current /home is 91% full, and / is about half full.

I like my bling! That's why I use dedicated video cards. Shared video just floods the system with unnecessary traffic decreasing system performance.

I install bling for the sake of bling.

Also, planning to get two new HDD's soon. My current /home is 91% full, and / is about half full.
oh i understand thats why i ran the same thing
but in the end most of my usefull stuff does not have it for performance reasons

I like my bling! That's why I use dedicated video cards. Shared video just floods the system with unnecessary traffic decreasing system performance.
The Intel integrated chips are better than ATI when it comes to Linux bling. As weird as it may seem, Intel's integrated chips use less ram running to bling than ATI chips.

You will wonder how you ever got by without a terminal.
Omg, yes!

I had to start using linux and unix computers at school this year and now that I've just got my windows machine I'm somewhat sad to not have the terminal... I mean, I have cygwin, but that's just not the same. Of course it doesn't hurt that when I was at school I was sorta hooked up to a portion of a supercomputer.. it's too bad they shut down the undergrad accounts at the end of every semester.

Omg, yes!

I had to start using linux and unix computers at school this year and now that I've just got my windows machine I'm somewhat sad to not have the terminal... I mean, I have cygwin, but that's just not the same. Of course it doesn't hurt that when I was at school I was sorta hooked up to a portion of a supercomputer.. it's too bad they shut down the undergrad accounts at the end of every semester.Fear not, Vista has a respectable shell, and I think there is a power toy for XP.

Fear not, Vista has a respectable shell, and I think there is a power toy for XP.
Well, I wouldn't want to get Vista in the near future. I'm somewhat wary of operating systems that haven't been out long enough to have their bugs worked out (well, plus I'm not in the market for a new computer in the near future, mine is fine and I'll get a shiny new, fast one for school work next year... that will sit in an office and likely have some variety of linux).

Well, I wouldn't want to get Vista in the near future. I'm somewhat wary of operating systems that haven't been out long enough to have their bugs worked out (well, plus I'm not in the market for a new computer in the near future, mine is fine and I'll get a shiny new, fast one for school work next year... that will sit in an office and likely have some variety of linux).
I'll see if I can find a link to the power toy.

EDIT: OK, I am full of shit. There isn't one.

Fear not, Vista has a respectable shell, and I think there is a power toy for XP.

Have you seen vista server core? CLI only

Though they do it wierd rather then running only like a TTY they run the equivalent of xorg but only having the terminal window lol I dont see why they did not get rid of the over head

Have you seen vista server core? CLI only

Though they do it wierd rather then running only like a TTY they run the equivalent of xorg but only having the terminal window lol I dont see why they did not get rid of the over head
The windowing system goes so deep into the system, I don't think they could get rid of it. It runs in kernelspace, and I wouldn't be surprised if the core of it was implemented in the kernel.

The windowing system goes so deep into the system, I don't think they could get rid of it. It runs in kernelspace, and I wouldn't be surprised if the core of it was implemented in the kernel.

I agree just they rewrote so much for that anyways dont know why they did not delve into kernal space

To me doing that sourt of hard work pays off in the long run

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

I'd probably go with a dual boot setup. Also, you could get an OEM copy of XP Home pretty cheap. Last time I checked on eBay, they were running somewhere around $60-$80 usd.

I'd probably go with a dual boot setup. Also, you could get an OEM copy of XP Home pretty cheap. Last time I checked on eBay, they were running somewhere around $60-$80 usd.

I asked the same thing OEM from a dealer was under 100 before vista came out

Windows XP advantages:

There are a lot of games for Windows, besides consoles it's the only choice for gamers.
All PC hardware provides Windows drivers.
If you now or in the future need a program that is so specialized and odd that there are no alternative programs that does the same thing, for example if you create flash stuff then you're stuck with that program and the OS it's made for: Windows.
Most people have already learned how to use it. If it works and you're comfortable with it there is no reason to go through the trouble of change.


Ubuntu Linux advantages:

No maintenance needed, once you get it to work it keeps working. No need to tinker with anti-virus/trojan/adware, firewall, defrag, reboot(I reboot about 4 times per year). The only maintenance I do manually is backups but that can be automated too.
The package manager Synaptic makes it easier to install most programs. Search for a keyword, mark checkboxes next to the programs you want and click the apply button. All programs on that list can be trusted and they are automatically updated.
You don't have to upgrade to Vista to get cool toys. You can install fancy 3D effects and there is a useful command line, it may be scary but it's a lot easier to get help when people can type "copy/paste these commands" then when they type "click there, here and there and th...".
Freedom. More choices, If you don't like the Gnome desktop environment try KDE, Xfce and Enlightenment. No price tags, DRM, CD keys, 30 day trials, nag screens or other strings attached.


Ubuntu Linux advice:

Don't be surpriced if what you know about Windows does not apply to Linux so you must both unlearn and relearn.
There are Linux alternatives to most Windows programs and many such as Open Office or Firefox are cross platform. Try them on Windows first to see if they can replace your Windows programs. If you still want to run Windows programs just use Windows, running those on Linux is unnecessary trouble.
If you build a new computer read up on what parts have good Linux drivers and pick those. If you already have a computer or buy prebuilt then try the live CD. If it doesn't have drivers for your hardware out of the box and you can't find an easy guide to configure it save yourself some trouble and go back to Windows. Try again with the next Ubuntu version, maybe there will be Linux drivers for your hardware by then.
Avoid downloading programs from websites unless you must. On Linux you're supposed to use the package manager and doing things the wrong way could cause a mess.
Search Ubuntuforums (www.ubuntuforums.org) when you need help. They are very friendly there, someone has probably already asked the same question and received good help.
Don't worry about the different file structure outside of your home directory. During normal use there is never any need to go outside of home.
Would you give someone who has never used Windows before a generic install CD and expect them to set everything up correctly the first time? If you know anyone who is experienced with Linux get them to set up Ubuntu for you. Otherwise consider it a challenge to install codecs and the flash player to get multimedia to work, configure modem/wireless to get Internet access and so on with a system you have zero experience with. And remember, everyday usage after you have it set up is easier since you do pretty much the same stuff as you do now (surf the web, check email, chat, write stuff, edit images...).

Windows XP advantages:

There are a lot of games for Windows, besides consoles it's the only choice for gamers.
All PC hardware provides Windows drivers.
If you now or in the future need a program that is so specialized and odd that there are no alternative programs that does the same thing, for example if you create flash stuff then you're stuck with that program and the OS it's made for: Windows.
Most people have already learned how to use it. If it works and you're comfortable with it there is no reason to go through the trouble of change.


Ubuntu Linux advantages:

No maintenance needed, once you get it to work it keeps working. No need to tinker with anti-virus/trojan/adware, firewall, defrag, reboot(I reboot about 4 times per year). The only maintenance I do manually is backups but that can be automated too.
The package manager Synaptic makes it easier to install most programs. Search for a keyword, mark checkboxes next to the programs you want and click the apply button. All programs on that list can be trusted and they are automatically updated.
You don't have to upgrade to Vista to get cool toys. You can install fancy 3D effects and there is a useful command line, it may be scary but it's a lot easier to get help when people can type "copy/paste these commands" then when they type "click there, here and there and th...".
Freedom. More choices, If you don't like the Gnome desktop environment try KDE, Xfce and Enlightenment. No price tags, DRM, CD keys, 30 day trials, nag screens or other strings attached.


Ubuntu Linux advice:

Don't be surpriced if what you know about Windows does not apply to Linux so you must both unlearn and relearn.
There are Linux alternatives to most Windows programs and many such as Open Office or Firefox are cross platform. Try them on Windows first to see if they can replace your Windows programs. If you still want to run Windows programs just use Windows, running those on Linux is unnecessary trouble.
If you build a new computer read up on what parts have good Linux drivers and pick those. If you already have a computer or buy prebuilt then try the live CD. If it doesn't have drivers for your hardware out of the box and you can't find an easy guide to configure it save yourself some trouble and go back to Windows. Try again with the next Ubuntu version, maybe there will be Linux drivers for your hardware by then.
Avoid downloading programs from websites unless you must. On Linux you're supposed to use the package manager and doing things the wrong way could cause a mess.
Search Ubuntuforums (www.ubuntuforums.org) when you need help. They are very friendly there, someone has probably already asked the same question and received good help.
Don't worry about the different file structure outside of your home directory. During normal use there is never any need to go outside of home.
Would you give someone who has never used Windows before a generic install CD and expect them to set everything up correctly the first time? If you know anyone who is experienced with Linux get them to set up Ubuntu for you. Otherwise consider it a challenge to install codecs and the flash player to get multimedia to work, configure modem/wireless to get Internet access and so on with a system you have zero experience with. And remember, everyday usage after you have it set up is easier since you do pretty much the same stuff as you do now (surf the web, check email, chat, write stuff, edit images...).


Good advice I would also note that the last section is not applicable only to ubuntu a lot of distro's have package managers and is good advice for a lot of distro's I use

Get linux if you want everything free and not get hacked so easily but at the risk of having zero customer support and not being able to get off the shelf software. And picking which version of Linux? I'd get Ubuntu personally.

Oh, and try getting older people to learn Linux when they have been using Windows for a while ...

If you get Windows, get Windows XP SP2, Vista Home Premium or Vista Business (if you like your networking).

If you don't want viruses on your computer, DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM.

Vista IS a virus, or that's my experience.

Well, I'm building a computer, and I'm deciding whether to go with Linux or Windows for my operating system. So, again, I'm turning to the computer experts here at NSG.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of the two? I'm looking at either Windows XP Home edition (The cheapest at $200) or some Linux distribution, the best looking of which right now is Ubuntu (At $0) (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu). However, I'm open to other suggestions on Linux distributions. So, I turn it over to you. Windows or Linux?

I'm no exspurt, but I'll give you what I've done

I thought "lets try Linux" last Oct when I retired a 6 yr old PC for a shiny new one and put Fedora 6 Linux on the old box
Downloaded a gparted live CD, used that to resize the HDD, no problems, follow the webpage instructions and u cant go wrong
slapped the fedora 1 disk in the machine and reboot
Followed the setup instructions and hit Install, and wait
It detected my ye olde vid, sound and network cards and installed the drivers without needing driver disks/reboots and general flaffing about.
Plus point, it detected my digital camera and installed it correctly when I plugged it into the USB port (unlike windows)
Adding and removing software is as easy as clicking on the add/remove software button on your menu and then clicking on what you want
Only trouble was enabling DVD/MP3 playing but a quick serch on a fedora forum and a single line of pasted text into the terminal sorted that out.and installing VLC (also installed on my Winxp machine)
I've been using open office for ages now on windows,so Fedora coming with open office already installed was nice.
Give Linux a go.... you can always delete it off the HDD and install windows later.

I just wish I'd installed on my new shiny box as well.
Having done that 2 weeks ago, beryl with a decent nvidia card gives some well nice eye candy when you are swapping around between applications like I do.

El-presidente Boris

Plus Def-con (my fav game) comes on linux now so I dont even have to boot back into windows to play a game:D

If you don't want viruses on your computer, DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM.

Vista IS a virus, or that's my experience.

I am on using it 9 months on it 6 of which on my work computer having to do keep up my production with some of the wierdiest non standard and home built applications

No proplem

As for "DO NOT DOWNLOAD THEM" what about worms? network aware worms are a gigantic problem on large networks

If you don't want viruses on your computer, DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM.

Vista IS a virus, or that's my experience.

Easier said than done.

Also Vista > XP. I don't know what is wrong with most people on this forum; i think most are just hating Vista as it is the cool thing to do.

Easier said than done.

Also Vista > XP. I don't know what is wrong with most people on this forum; i think most are just hating Vista as it is the cool thing to do.

No kidding most of the time I seriously doubt they really used the beta much less an actual release

I mean I am disappointed in a lot of things sure, but interested in some of the features but every software release has its ups and downs only people playing the "popular" card and fan boys jump on a software release this hard yet seem to not have any depth of knowledge

After playing with Vista Business, it's alright. It might use up way too much disk space but I'm beginning to like it.

After playing with Vista Business, it's alright. It might use up way too much disk space but I'm beginning to like it.

Yeah to be honest its more like "meh" so what sort of thing for the most part ... some of the cooler features I have not got to deploy on a larger scale (AD tied bitlocker is something we are playing with right now) but in the end no extreme hate or love