XP/Vista or Linux

[Dispozition]

Ok...First off, no saying 'zomg, get's linux 'cause it's bettorz!' I'll report you...Now, details, details...

I have upgraded my computer, it can actually do stuff now. Intel 2.4ghz quad core cpu, AIT HD2900XT 1gb DDR4 GPU, 2x1gb 1066mhz DDR3 Ram...

I'm thinking about changing my OS and since I've heard such good things of Linux, I wanna know why I should change to it.

OSX is straight out because I game, a lot. I need my computer to be able to run Itunes, FX, Photoshop, All games, no matter when from or what sort.

Do I stick with XP and dual boot Vista, or get linux? Please give actual reasons as well, not just 'because it's better'. Thank you :P

[InaVegt]

A dual boot XP/Ubuntu (www.ubuntulinux.org) is perfect, you can run a lot of windows under WinE (Windows Emulator), and for what you can't run under WinE you can always boot XP. I advise Ubuntu because it's the *MOST* user friendly Linux distro available.

Linux has several advantages over Windows, for starters it's more virus proof (and not just because there's less viruses written for it.), a lot harder to crack (not hack, a hacker is not someone who breaks into computers, that's a cracker) and has plenty of free software available.

[LCR]

OSX is straight out? Oh, shucks ...

[The Prince of Cats]

A dual boot XP/Ubuntu (www.ubuntulinux.org) is perfect, you can run a lot of windows under WinE (Windows Emulator), and for what you can't run under WinE you can always boot XP. I advise Ubuntu because it's the *MOST* user friendly Linux distro available.
I second the Ubuntu suggestion, since it was what i was about to suggest to you. I used to dual-boot, now I just stick to XP and boot Linux from disc when I need it. If all I need to do is use email and write, I prefer to use Linux just to avoid the sudden BSoD that Windows is so famous for. (though, touch (virtual) wood, I have not seen the BSoD in over 48 hours...)

[Elidyr]

I second the Ubuntu suggestion, since it was what i was about to suggest to you. I used to dual-boot, now I just stick to XP and boot Linux from disc when I need it. If all I need to do is use email and write, I prefer to use Linux just to avoid the sudden BSoD that Windows is so famous for. (though, touch (virtual) wood, I have not seen the BSoD in over 48 hours...)

From what century is your computer from? I havent seen the BSoD in the past 4 years.

Personally, I don't really see the point in using Linux if you use the computer for your average user needs, like the ones the OP described.

[Samiam303]

I'm gonna totally second what Gezina said. Get Ubuntu, then double boot it with XP. That way, you've got the option to go either way. I even went so far as to triple boot Ubuntu/XP/Vista on this computer, but I've found I NEVER use Vista as you can do anything you need pretty much on XP. I'd just throw Vista on too if you think you'll eventually wanna run Vista-only games.

Here's a site on Triple Booting: How-To (http://www.hevnikov.com/blog/2006/11/13/triple-boot-xp-vista-ubuntu-with-single-boot-screen/) (if you wanted to double boot you could just follow it to the end of the XP part, and just don't install Vista)

[The Prince of Cats]

From what century is your computer from? I havent seen the BSoD in the past 4 years.
It is fairly new (about six months old), but something hurt the memory on Wednesday and it went to the BSoD. Before that, I have to admit that I haven't seen the beast in over a year.

[Pyro]

Well whatever you do don't get Office 2007. They changed around all the icons and made it more "user friendly" with pictures and stuff. When I first tried to use it, it took me about 10 minutes to figures out how to change the margins.

[bluewind95]

As far as I know...

Linux has a LOT of safety into its system. It is generally considered the best-programmed operating system in terms of safety and efficiency. However, it can give some trouble with compatibility with programs. I have personally never used it, although I'd like to use it someday.

Windows XP isn't the best thing around in safety or efficiency, but it gets the job done. IF you're careful, have an antivirus and another safety program or two, you shouldn't get much trouble from virus and spyware and whatnot. It also has nearly eliminated the BSoD issue. I think XP is the best Windows (more stable than others, for one thing). Windows XP has few, if any, compatibility issues, so it's more practical if you're the casual user. Just make sure you have several safety programs. And preferably, Firefox as your internet browser.

Vista.... well, I've heard nothing but HORROR stories regarding Vista. It's inefficient and incompatible. I only fiddled with it a little bit once, but I died a little inside. Never have I seen SO many system resources wasted in such petty, useless things. However, it's pretty and flashy, so if you don't mind using a TON of RAM for lovely visual effects and if you don't mind the serious incompatibility issues (which are a LOT bigger than what I remember even XP had at first!), go ahead and get Vista.

[Icewalker]

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who uses linux, about whether I should or not. Basically what I heard when you came down to it, is that for your average user, linux isn't really much better, and it is harder to use. It is a little more for power users, as it is easier to really do stuff in your computer, instead of just say, running a game. Also, considering what you are going for, full linux isn't an option as it won't run some modern games. You want either not linux, or linux/XP I think.

[Eldpollard]

How do you dual boot? This computer came with vista, which I'm not too happy about. How do I then dual boot ubuntu? I'm downloading the iso as we speak.

[LCR]

I have some friends who use Linux (Ubuntu) and while they claim it to be user-friendly, they also used to proudly tell me how installing their printer took them "less than a day!". If you're a casual user, I'd say XP is completely sufficient. I used XP for a couple of years, and while crashes did happen, it never completely trashed my computer.
I now prefer OSX, but it's really not that much better than XP. Just different and prettier (and easier to use, although that doesn't matter once you have some experience with the way Windows works).

[Ego Slayer]

zomg, get's linux 'cause it's bettorz! :smallwink:


Vista.... well, I've heard nothing but HORROR stories regarding Vista. It's inefficient and incompatible. I only fiddled with it a little bit once, but I died a little inside. Never have I seen SO many system resources wasted in such petty, useless things. However, it's pretty and flashy, so if you don't mind using a TON of RAM for lovely visual effects and if you don't mind the serious incompatibility issues (which are a LOT bigger than what I remember even XP had at first!), go ahead and get Vista.
Yeah, just going to throw in my agreement here. Flashy-shiny-pretty is not with the cost in RAM. Isn't it like 1gb? I've seen Linux do much more interesting things on less RAM. I find the whole system slightly obnoxious. Security windows popping up all the time asking you if you really want to run a program you just double-clicked on. :smallannoyed: I really have not found any "must haves" or revolutionary features, so it's just like... a Hummer vehicle; A large shiny gas-hog that doesn't do a better job of anything.

[Don Julio Anejo]

As far as I know...

Linux has a LOT of safety into its system. It is generally considered the best-programmed operating system in terms of safety and efficiency. However, it can give some trouble with compatibility with programs. I have personally never used it, although I'd like to use it someday.

Windows XP isn't the best thing around in safety or efficiency, but it gets the job done. IF you're careful, have an antivirus and another safety program or two, you shouldn't get much trouble from virus and spyware and whatnot. It also has nearly eliminated the BSoD issue. I think XP is the best Windows (more stable than others, for one thing). Windows XP has few, if any, compatibility issues, so it's more practical if you're the casual user. Just make sure you have several safety programs. And preferably, Firefox as your internet browser.

Vista.... well, I've heard nothing but HORROR stories regarding Vista. It's inefficient and incompatible. I only fiddled with it a little bit once, but I died a little inside. Never have I seen SO many system resources wasted in such petty, useless things. However, it's pretty and flashy, so if you don't mind using a TON of RAM for lovely visual effects and if you don't mind the serious incompatibility issues (which are a LOT bigger than what I remember even XP had at first!), go ahead and get Vista.

I second this :smile:
Vista looks cool on the surface, but for all intents and purposes, even disregarding resources wasted for Aero, it's fricking incompatible with everything. Half my stuff including games and most specialized photo editing programs (like Capture 1) didn't run on it, no matter the compatibility mode checkboxes or CPU affinity or anything else. Problem solved by installing XP.

Its' interface is also horribly inefficient and hard to use IMO. Mostly little things, like [x] that's half the size compared to previous versions of Windows (which is even worse now because most monitors are something like 1280x1024 at the very least), or badly done Windows Explorer panels that don't show stuff like file size, date created, resolution (if it's a picture) or # of pages if it's a document. So IMO unless you want to try going the alternate route with Linux (I've heard horror stories about it from several friends who used it/are using it about how it's hard to use for people who can't write code), stick to XP. I don't really see the point of a dual boot to Vista until DX10 games come out.

PS: luckily you can shut off security warnings in Vista easier than XP. That's probably the only thing they managed to improve on. When you tell Windows to stop asking if you really want to move the mouse, it actually stops asking.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

I second the Ubuntu suggestion, since it was what i was about to suggest to you. I used to dual-boot, now I just stick to XP and boot Linux from disc when I need it. If all I need to do is use email and write, I prefer to use Linux just to avoid the sudden BSoD that Windows is so famous for. (though, touch (virtual) wood, I have not seen the BSoD in over 48 hours...)

Wow.. 48 hours?! If you are getting BSoD's that often, then you should look at getting your computer hardware looked at for compatibilty; or look at some of the applications that you have installed. MS has a BSoD translator somewhere, what it does is read and examine the memory dump and descriptor information and it can tell you with almost complete certainty where the problem is. In my experience, it is hardly ever with Windows itself; rather a program written for it or with a hardware problem.

I have had the same Windows XP install for well over a year now, and I have never had a BSoD. I am being utterly completely truthful; there is no sarcasm here. My previous computer was the same way. The only time that I got a BSoD on one of my computers was for some incorrectly stamped RAM. Seriously. This is probably the most stable system that I have ever had. I don't know what it is, maybe I am a Computer Whisperer, but I never have any major problems with any Windows system.

[preserver3]

I need my computer to be able to run Itunes, FX, Photoshop, All games, no matter when from or what sort.

As much as I love Linux, nothing you're doing suggests a direct need for it.

Windows XP is probably your best bet until the 1 GB+ Vista Service pack finishes Beta testing and arrives to the public in early next year. Notable issues with Vista include but are not limited to some hardware compatibility(something actually the hardware vendors fault), software compatibility(something that's also the software vendors fault more than Microsoft) and resource usage(something clearly Microsoft's fault).

As far as gaining some basic Linux experience, I suggest downloading one of the many linux Util libraries from sourceforge.net and learning to use some of the command line functions. ls -alrt is a factor of magnitude more useful than dir and once you learn the hang of a pipeline, you'll never want anything else.

A good way to learn basic Linux skills would be to boot your pretty machine using a Linux boot stored on a thumb drive. While not terribly useful for fully graphical usage, it also gives you a nice way of recovering from serious hardware problems on yours or other PCs.

I wish you the best of luck and a long life.

[Don Julio Anejo]

As much as I love Linux, nothing you're doing suggests a direct need for it.

Windows XP is probably your best bet until the 1 GB+ Vista Service pack finishes Beta testing and arrives to the public in early next year. Notable issues with Vista include but are not limited to some hardware compatibility(something actually the hardware vendors fault), software compatibility(something that's also the software vendors fault more than Microsoft) and resource usage(something clearly Microsoft's fault).


Actually hardware compatibility issues are Microsoft's fault. In fact, it was done on purpose. Microsoft purposefully took out backwards compatibility with devices made for XP so they can issue licenses to make drivers for Vista for hardware so they can control what kind of equipment you can use on your computer (and if someone makes a device that's not licensed, they will be sued into oblivion).

[Crispy Dave]

Only duel boot if you have a dx 10 video cared and do it with vista otherwise just stick with xp o ya and at least 2 gigs of ram

[preserver3]

Actually hardware compatibility issues are Microsoft's fault. In fact, it was done on purpose. Microsoft purposefully took out backwards compatibility with devices made for XP so they can issue licenses to make drivers for Vista for hardware so they can control what kind of equipment you can use on your computer (and if someone makes a device that's not licensed, they will be sued into oblivion).

Technically what you're referring to is the "Driver Signing" debate. They changed the model notes for the WDM, and then notified driver manufacturers several years ago to be prepared for the changes to be compatible. The fight is actually even older than Vista and XP. When I was writing drivers for Win2K there was a similar problem, but there the company I worked for had to pay 20K for a signed driver and send in a bunch of "stuff" to Microsoft to be logo tested. The much of the hardware industry has balked at this surcharge for driver signing, especially since each new and updated version requires a new digital signature, but Microsoft's defense is that driver incompatibility issues are the only source for BSoD and they're tired of taking the flak.

Given that Driver signing has been a debate for 8 years, I feel, and I'll admit this is an opinion, that Microsoft is relatively speaking in the clear on this one.

I think there's plenty of room for debate on this, however, and would love the discussion.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Technically what you're referring to is the "Driver Signing" debate. They changed the model notes for the WDM, and then notified driver manufacturers several years ago to be prepared for the changes to be compatible. The fight is actually even older than Vista and XP. When I was writing drivers for Win2K there was a similar problem, but there the company I worked for had to pay 20K for a signed driver and send in a bunch of "stuff" to Microsoft to be logo tested. The much of the hardware industry has balked at this surcharge for driver signing, especially since each new and updated version requires a new digital signature, but Microsoft's defense is that driver incompatibility issues are the only source for BSoD and they're tired of taking the flak.

Given that Driver signing has been a debate for 8 years, I feel, and I'll admit this is an opinion, that Microsoft is relatively speaking in the clear on this one.

I think there's plenty of room for debate on this, however, and would love the discussion.

I'm just an amateur so you probably know A LOT more about it than I do. But my problem with drivers is one of business practices an politics - it can be used to control what devices you can use on your computer which will take away a large part of what computers are - you can do anything and everything with it that's physically possible. And now Vista being mandatory on all new computers, it makes it even more likely. Just because of this I would have bought a Mac when I was buying my laptop if I had the money.

[preserver3]

I'm just an amateur so you probably know A LOT more about it than I do. But my problem with drivers is one of business practices an politics - it can be used to control what devices you can use on your computer which will take away a large part of what computers are - you can do anything and everything with it that's physically possible. And now Vista being mandatory on all new computers, it makes it even more likely. Just because of this I would have bought a Mac when I was buying my laptop if I had the money.


There's nothing amateurish about your response, and I haven't written a Windows driver mod in 4 years--linux is another story.

Even though I'm defending Microsoft in this narrow arena, I don't like Vista that much. I think Ubuntu looks better than Vista with Glass, and there are dozens of videos to support this. I'm a convert to the mouse is a relatively bad input device crowd, and I hate that my old hot keys don't work anymore. I have a whole bunch of util scripts I use on XP professional that run right out of my windows directory, and they make my command line in XP identical to my Linux shell, or my Solaris xterm. I'm conservative in my computing and I don't like that I and others will spend the next two years making Vista "usable" to "our kind" of computing. But, kids and new users love Vista. It's pretty and it captures the eye of people who don't use much of their left brain for anything, as well as left brain folk who haven't touched Windows XP before. I try to steer kids and new users towards Linux when appropriate, but when this user mentioned gaming, I knew where he had to go and that was Windows XP.

All that said, I see Windows Vista as having been released almost as a Windows Millennium edition, when compared to the Beta of Server 2008. Server 2008 has the same hardware compatibility issues, but it's slicker, cleaner and reminds me of the jump from NT4 to Win 2000 professional. The new streaming server is elite compared to the Windows Media Server 9 in Win2k3, but neither of them is a well configured Darwin server with some custom scripts. Glass works without soaking the resources, and command interfaces are single keys away--a necessity when you want to be able to get to the root of a problem swiftly and without visual cues.

As to a Mac..... I love that BSD is just Linux with some nice little stability features. Virtualizations of other operating systems is easy enough that anyone new to them can be walked through it with a single page of instructions, and that means that running WindowsXP inside of a Mac is fairly easy. There seem to be a few "semi-important" keys missing from the mac books compared to the Lenova ThinkPad at my fingertips, but these are all forgivable because it's linux I didn't have to hunt for special drivers for. Mac is the Linux you can give to a new user as a gift.... An expensive gift, but a gift that can actually be used.

As to the demonization of Microsoft? I'm a lot gentler soul about it than I was even 2 years ago, let alone 10. Microsoft has almost nowhere to go but down. Seeing as they employ literally tens of thousands of some of the smartest minds IT has ever produced, that spells a nasty formula for IT that should at all costs be avoided. it means that no matter how many great minds you put on a problem, you can still achieve such a bureaucratic mess that the combined might of those minds cannot dig you out. I think Microsoft is learning from Google, and trying desperately to steer their ship out of that straight. I still want linux to kick their butts, but I'd like to see this come off gracefully and avoid a complete destruction for Microsoft.

Does that cover the whole gamut of operating systems without stepping on any toes?

[Dwarkanath]

As an admin of a small number (160 or so) of XP/Vista/Linux machines, I'd suggest sticking with XP for the time being. Vista, as has been mentioned numerous times here and elsewhere, just isn't "Enterprise Quality" at this time.

And as much as I'm a Unix enthusiast, unless you have some background with Unix I certainly don't recommend making a complete switch. Not that anything is truly hard about Unix, it's just very different from Windows. Also, if you're going to try Linux, try a number of different distributions and don't forget the BSD family (particularly FreeBSD).



As to a Mac..... I love that BSD is just Linux with some nice little stability features.

Does that cover the whole gamut of operating systems without stepping on any toes?Almost :-)

Just to nit-pick: BSD are Linux are quite different deep under the hood and don't share any common ancestry, so saying "BSD is just Linux" with some changes isn't fair/accurate. In fact, BSD is far older than Linux. Also, Mac's OS isn't technically BSD, it's a Mach microkernel with some code from FreeBSD (Networking code for sure, probably some bits and pieces of other stuff as well).

-- Dave

[Penguinsushi]

I'll second/third/twenty-fifth what some others have said here.

As much as I'm sold on OSX and my imac is my baby, it's not a spectacular gaming platform - however, even it is better than linux for games in many ways. But the long and the short of it is, if you *need* your video games, you need a windows install.

That said, I'm lazy and dual-booting is a pain. Even on my machines that *do* dual boot (like my laptop which i'm on now, and my wife's computer - which both dual-boot ubuntu/windows), they tend to spend pretty much all their time in one OS (in our case, ubuntu) and only boot into the other for a brief and specific purpose. Though I could be wrong, my guess is you'll find yourself in whichever one you like for your day-to-day activities, and will very seldomly switch to the other just because of the inconvenience of doing so.

As for linux, before I was converted to the dark side of the Mac, I used debian for years. It was a great distro and it served me well, but there were some things about it that you just had to beat into submission. By contrast, I have been very impressed with ubuntu's efforts at user-side ease-of-use. Though linux has always been a developer's OS (as opposed to a user's), distros like ubuntu are making it a much more viable option for the non-techies (such as my wife) among us, while keeping most of the things that make it great to those of us who know our way around a *nix system.

As a final thought, I don't know what your current proficiency is/is not, but there's never anything bad about learning something new - and some (more) ranks in 'use *nix device' may come in handy to you at some point.

Anyway, there's my 3.5c - probably about what it's worth.

~PS

[valadil]

As much as I love Linux, nothing you're doing suggests a direct need for it.


This is probably the best piece of advice in here so far. Getting your feet wet with linux just for the sake of trying it out is fine, but you do have a lot of stuff that depends on windows and you should leave a windows partition floating around.

I'd go with XP over Vista for sure. Vista hogs resources without giving back much in return. Given that retailers are going back and offering XP instead of Vista suggests that Vista isn't too popular and there's probably a reason for it. I haven't used Vista for more than 2 minutes though so I'm not going to say anything else about it.

If you do try a linux, the newest Ubuntu is very friendly. It shouldn't be too big a deal to install it and dual boot your system.

The reason I prefer linux is that there's less crud in the way. If I have a new system and I want to burn a CD, I use apt to search for a burning app (assuming one didn't come with the system) and install it. With windows I have to go find something, hope that the demo lets me burn a whole disc, and if not go find a serial code. I don't like the extra steps involved for using a basic piece of hardware.

I'm also a huge fan of the command line. When you know what option you want, typing in the option is a lot more efficient than finding it in the menu. For example let's say you want to copy a file to another computer. In linux I can use the scp (secureshell copy) command. I know that it requires two options: the file I'm copying and it's destination. "scp file.txt 192.168.0.1:/home/valadil" will copy file.txt to the computer at 192.168.0.1 and put it in my home directory. This is intimidating at first and it will take years to memorize these things, but once you have it memorized you just make the computer do what you want it to do instead of click and point and hope you find the option you want.

[preserver3]

I'm also a huge fan of the command line. When you know what option you want, typing in the option is a lot more efficient than finding it in the menu. For example let's say you want to copy a file to another computer. In linux I can use the scp (secureshell copy) command. I know that it requires two options: the file I'm copying and it's destination. "scp file.txt 192.168.0.1:/home/valadil" will copy file.txt to the computer at 192.168.0.1 and put it in my home directory. This is intimidating at first and it will take years to memorize these things, but once you have it memorized you just make the computer do what you want it to do instead of click and point and hope you find the option you want.


I wonder if there are many Linux fans out there that don't love it for its command line?

The next step to what he's discussing above is to change your .alias file and then to make your scripts directory so the above function is /usr/bin/copyToValadil file.txt

[valadil]

The next step to what he's discussing above is to change your .alias file and then to make your scripts directory so the above function is /usr/bin/copyToValadil file.txt

Nah, the next step is ssh keys (http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/ssh-agent-forwarding.html)for added security and convenience! That and .ssh/config to get shortcuts with tab completion to my favorite hosts. I use scp enough on enough different machines that I've got it memorized and there's no point in a different alias for each box. Unless I can integrate javascript's closures or python's lambda into my shell so I can make a new function each time I scp somewhere new...

I babbled a lot about the commandline because I hope to get across the point that it actually is useful rather than just a way to make me feel l33t. I read an article a while back that I wish I could dredge up that explained that a point and click interface had the expressivity of a whiny two year old. You look at your options then point at one. Pretty much the only thing you can express is "I want that!" With a commandline (when you know what it is you want) you just say it. Once you've adjusted to telling the computer to do what you want, going back to windows and being reduced to pointing at one of five options is just insulting.

[preserver3]

Nah, the next step is ssh keys (http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/ssh-agent-forwarding.html)for added security and convenience! That and .ssh/config to get shortcuts with tab completion to my favorite hosts. I use scp enough on enough different machines that I've got it memorized and there's no point in a different alias for each box. Unless I can integrate javascript's closures or python's lambda into my shell so I can make a new function each time I scp somewhere new...

Ah, I misunderstood where you were headed. I assumed since you were using the common subnet of 192.168.0.X that you were showing him how to use servers within his own home switch or router. Not getting him ready for a career in Linux Admin like I think each of us has had the luck to experience.
:smallwink:


I babbled a lot about the commandline because I hope to get across the point that it actually is useful rather than just a way to make me feel l33t. I read an article a while back that I wish I could dredge up that explained that a point and click interface had the expressivity of a whiny two year old. You look at your options then point at one. Pretty much the only thing you can express is "I want that!" With a commandline (when you know what it is you want) you just say it. Once you've adjusted to telling the computer to do what you want, going back to windows and being reduced to pointing at one of five options is just insulting.


I was mentored by a very wise set of programmers who called the mouse "the worst user input device to ever be chained to the hand of a so-called computer user."

SQSH and VI are the favored tools of a keyboarder and I find myself typing line numbers then shift+g or dd when I try to work in Word or Open Office.
The command line frees you of the misnomer that you need to click a button for a menu or need to type search strings in some sort of special box. Variations on Bash and Ksh, as well as AWK, SED, PERL and command line php, javascript, java, c, c++ and even cobol become little tools along the way.

That's why I have all of those command tools for my Windows machines, that give me the same commands and the same editors in windows.

I think we use Linux in much the same way and it's good to hear that it's out there, but I think we're straying a bit on the thread.

[Reinboom]

Mouse: Convenience and speed.
Keyboard: Control.

If a computer had just a mouse, yes, yes it would be like described above - but most computers have both for a reason.
I'm a programmer and an artist. I boot through both OpenSuSE and Windows XP. I couldn't live without the keyboard or mouse for very long in either case, and I would also feel like I was wasting my dual monitor space by just running terminal. I multitask to an extreme, and I need multiple things going at once - a mouse provides quick control over what's displayed and speeds up my multitasking. For art reasons, I don't have enough money for a tablet yet - so I have to deal with what I have... and I sure won't resort to trying to do anything artistic related via a keyboard.
Those who say the mouse is useless? I say take your "useless mouse" and shove it up your right nostril.

Anyways...
I also encourage the dual booting of windows and linux - though - I prefer OpenSuSE over Ubuntu for the time being.

[Ramebriz]

In my personal point of view (nothing technical or numbers) the Vista is the worst of the 3. For playing games it just horrible it needs a lot of ram to work and taht dosen't help, yeah it look good, but who cares how it look if i can't play or browse on the internet or just do my homework, my Vista has gone to blue screen a lot of times (more than one per day). and i just think taht if you don't need vista don't use it. Also vista has a lot of errors is just a f+++++g beta!
I haven´t used linux but my friends have told me its really good, so if you wanna try it go ahead.
And XP really is "simple" is nothing difficult and doesn't need alot to work grate, still is microsoft and there is a lot of virus that can harm it.
A friend of mine told me once you can divide (not sure if it said that way) your hard drive so you can have two, maybe XP and linux, so when you start your computer you can choose which one to use.
Still I insist vista is horrible, well it have one thing good - it looks "good":smallconfused: .

[Reinboom]

In my personal point of view (nothing technical or numbers) the Vista is the worst of the 3. For playing games it just horrible it needs a lot of ram to work and taht dosen't help, yeah it look good, but who cares how it look if i can't play or browse on the internet or just do my homework, my Vista has gone to blue screen a lot of times (more than one per day). and i just think taht if you don't need vista don't use it. Also vista has a lot of errors is just a f+++++g beta!
I haven´t used linux but my friends have told me its really good, so if you wanna try it go ahead.
And XP really is "simple" is nothing difficult and doesn't need alot to work grate, still is microsoft and there is a lot of virus that can harm it.
A friend of mine told me once you can divide (not sure if it said that way) your hard drive so you can have two, maybe XP and linux, so when you start your computer you can choose which one to use.
Still I insist vista is horrible, well it have one thing good - it looks "good":smallconfused: .

I must make a bit of corrections here.
Vista is not a beta, the beta time of Vista has been over for some time now.
Linux does require a bit of computer-savvy to get going, but once you learn how it works great. It's not very game centric (though WinE is assisting with this), but it does work.
The divide is done by splitting your hard disk partition. The dual systems is simply called a dual boot --- and you could feasibly multi boot as many operating systems as you have room for with a decent boot loader.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Experience wise, anything Microsoft makes is a beta at least until Service Pack 2 or it's equivalent (Windows 98SE anyone?). Before that it's too glitchy, unreliable and incompatible compared to its' predecessor.

[RMS Oceanic]

Hi. I'm interested in trying out Linux, and was wondering: I have a couple of USB external hard drives. Could I install Linux on one of them, or would the computer not recognise them until the OS is running? I'm asking because my computer's base hard drive is only 30GB, and I don't know if that's big enough for a partition.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I'm pretty sure you can do it without any problems if your computer is new enough to recognize the hard drive during boot (and doesn't need any drivers for the USB port).

[RMS Oceanic]

My computer is a Dell Inspiron 8500 with XP I got back in 2003. It doesn't need the CD to get the drivers for the hard drives. It's just Plug and Play. Does that affect the answer?

[The Orange Zergling]

Anything but Vista would probably be a good idea. Vista is notoriously non-backwards-compatable, wants confirmation for pretty much everything you do, and is ever-so-glitchy. It's caused me so much frustration with the Warcraft 3 WorldEditor (It crashes randomly, and often).

The ONLY redeeming point (IMO) is the spiffy UI, but it can be mimicked using add-ons... or so I'm told.

[preserver3]

Mouse: Convenience and speed.
Keyboard: Control.

If a computer had just a mouse, yes, yes it would be like described above - but most computers have both for a reason.
I'm a programmer and an artist. I boot through both OpenSuSE and Windows XP. I couldn't live without the keyboard or mouse for very long in either case, and I would also feel like I was wasting my dual monitor space by just running terminal.

To be fair I use a mouse, and two monitors, but I find Alt-Tab to be a more effective way of switching between the screens. Moving the cursor and windows is a function of properly enabling and using the arrow keys, additionally you can assign the position of a window in a terminal by assigning the handle a movement across the monitor space. These are all valid ways of utilizing space without the need of a mouse. They don't slow typing and they let you do things like tail an output while you run your programs.
While Photoshop, Flash, and a host of other "Creative" programs require the use of a mouse because they don't allow as much directional controls(nor should they), Auto-CAD packages and even Visio allow you to work without a mouse throughout most of the application.




I multitask to an extreme, and I need multiple things going at once - a mouse provides quick control over what's displayed and speeds up my multitasking.

You probably type at speeds well above average. Before you reach for the mouse the next time, Alt-Tab to the next application and notice that your fingers are still on the keyboard and never had to move. Those little seconds of not switching tasks can speed up motor function.




For art reasons, I don't have enough money for a tablet yet - so I have to deal with what I have... and I sure won't resort to trying to do anything artistic related via a keyboard.
Those who say the mouse is useless? I say take your "useless mouse" and shove it up your right nostril.

Anyways...
I also encourage the dual booting of windows and linux - though - I prefer OpenSuSE over Ubuntu for the time being.


To be fair, we did have the light pen, a long time before we had the mouse and we have literally thousands of hand motions already trained in our society with a pen. While price wise the mouse is cheaper, is it really as useful? If you had a wacom tablet, would you still just use a mouse?

As a final note, this was more of how I was "trained" than anything else. I use a mouse because it's there, but I use a Keyboard because it speeds up tasks for me and works as directional and input.

[The Valiant Turtle]

Depending on how much you need Windows you could also just run Linux and run Windows in a virtual machine. Admittedly, this probably isn't good for games, but for other problems it might be a good solution.

I believe that you can actually have a dual-boot setup where you can boot to Windows when you need it to have all of the computers resources (mainly for Gaming) and be able to bring up the same windows install as a Virtual Machine in Linux. It's tricky because you are essentially switching Windows between two sets of hardware (the 'real' hardware and the virtual hardware), but if you can get it working it really gives you the best of both worlds.

I've used Vista a little bit. I did find a few things I liked. Several things that were incredibly annoying, and nothing that I really needed. I seriously doubt it will ever get installed on any machine that I own.

I've spent even less time in Office 2007, but my impression of it is not nearly as bad. It's definitely different, but I can just begin to see why the differences might be good if I got used to them. I never write something off just because it's different. My boss has Outlook 2007 installed, and he's extremely impressed with it.

[valadil]

I believe that you can actually have a dual-boot setup where you can boot to Windows when you need it to have all of the computers resources (mainly for Gaming) and be able to bring up the same windows install as a Virtual Machine in Linux. It's tricky because you are essentially switching Windows between two sets of hardware (the 'real' hardware and the virtual hardware), but if you can get it working it really gives you the best of both worlds.


I've been told this too, but I haven't been able to get it to work myself. I find it hard to believe that windows would switch between vmware drivers and real drivers correctly with each bootup, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, vmware is great if you have apps that you really do need. I do web design and pretty much have to test things in Internet Explorer. Granted my machine at work is spectacular (I got $3000 to config whatever comp I wanted), but vmware runs office apps and IE so well I sometimes forget I'm in a VM. If you're not looking to do games, vmware is fine.

Also, for anyone dual booting or even anyone with a separate computer for work, I highly recommend FoxMarks (http://foxmarks.com/). It's a firefox plugin that periodically syncs your bookmarks with foxmarks' server. It does this (mostly) transparently. Since most of what I do on a computer takes place in a web browser, this makes me feel at home on any machine I regularly visit. I know it sounds trivial, but it really does make dual booting feel that much nicer.

[Reinboom]

While Photoshop, Flash, and a host of other "Creative" programs require the use of a mouse because they don't allow as much directional controls(nor should they), Auto-CAD packages and even Visio allow you to work without a mouse throughout most of the application.
I use mostly Photoshop in this respect - and if I had a wacom - yes I would forfit my mouse most of the time. Even for gaming purposes a wacom is fast :smallwink: --- BUT! Not all gaming. Sometimes the mouse wheel is just efficient and others the wacom just feels awkward for.
I've had to do AutoCAD work, and I did primarily use just the keyboard for it and loved it. Being able to so precisely do each measurement by keyboard was great for that program. However, I still used the mouse even then. Faster to flip the visual and move around what I saw. The mouse -does- increase the speed of these programs.
For Maya, another program I must use (a well known 3-dimensional modeling software) - just watching the 'best' artists, and the quickest at my school... it's a combination of mouse and keyboard. Not just mouse - not just keyboard. Most of the motions they use is not emulated by a wacom either due to requiring the mouse wheel.




You probably type at speeds well above average. Before you reach for the mouse the next time, Alt-Tab to the next application and notice that your fingers are still on the keyboard and never had to move. Those little seconds of not switching tasks can speed up motor function.
Tried (having lost my mouse before) - slower. I also dual monitor and I find it fast to just quick click everything. Even a wacom isn't very effective, usually, for dual monitors since they are intended for a single screen and it's difficult for me to use the "mouse" mode of a wacom - the pen mode just becomes very awkward when the screen extends further.
When I say multitask to an extreme... my task bar in windows for example is on the left of the first screen. It commonly becomes two lists in (when the taskbar is like that, it just becomes two lists next to each other - no arrows). For using the alt-tab method, I could commonly have to hit the alt tab or shift+alt+tab for at least 10 hits - quickly readjusting my focus to it than my tasks that are clearly open on the side. If I have chat programs open - I have to click through to find which is blinking for me in the alt tab menu (which they don't blink in) and it's just too much hassle.
Mouse? Move hand to mouse, move hand over, press button, released mouse. Much faster, much more efficient. Accomplishes the same tasks - and I would say- with much greater control even than the keyboard.



To be fair, we did have the light pen, a long time before we had the mouse and we have literally thousands of hand motions already trained in our society with a pen. While price wise the mouse is cheaper, is it really as useful? If you had a wacom tablet, would you still just use a mouse?
No, I would be using a combination of keyboard + wacom + mouse. Mouse still has its place in gaming by that point. I do navigate a screen faster with a wacom - however - as I mentioned above -- wacoms are awkward on dual screens and I would have to retrain my hand a bit.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Depends on what you do with the computer... I would have very little use for Wacom for example. I don't draw. For normal Windows stuff mouse is sufficient. For gaming it would be extremely slow and awkward to use it. And for Photoshop - well I'm a photographer, not an artist. I need precise movements, not movements similar to how the hand works. A trackball would be much better, but a mouse set to slow sensitivity works almost as well.

[preserver3]

No, I would be using a combination of keyboard + wacom + mouse. Mouse still has its place in gaming by that point. I do navigate a screen faster with a wacom - however - as I mentioned above -- wacoms are awkward on dual screens and I would have to retrain my hand a bit.

Had an interesting conversation with a former work associate of my wife's about this very subject. She's a Graphic artist for a local TV station, mostly Photoshop, Premiere and After Effects, but a considerable amount of Lightwave (similar to Maya, but a Maya/Lightwave debate is similar to a Linux versus Windows Debate). Anyway, my wife, like me, uses multiple monitors, and I wanted to buy a Wacom for Christmas that helped her achieve what she wanted. She had mentioned the 6x8 she uses at work doesn't work for her well and the 6x8 she has at home is unused. She's commented that she needs to use it more only when she can't draw it with the mouse.

My spy, who admittedly hasn't worked with her for over a year, mentioned that my wife's primary use of the mouse seemed to be a lift and "come hither" motion with the mouse, almost like scraping a bowl for the last of the cake batter. A mouse scooping motion.

I'm at heart a programmer. Artistic leanings I have in certain areas, but if something "looks wrong" to me I try to fix it by adjusting raw numbers, shifting the x,y by a relative amount, and trying to keep movements within an imaginary box that constrains to 3x4 or perfect rectangle proportions. Rarely do I try to eyeball something. Perhaps this is why the mouse isn't usable to me? Nor would I lift a mouse in a repeated motion to seemingly scoop with it.

You mentioned that Alt-tab and even shift Alt-tab didn't work for you, but I just did an interesting experiment. I Alt-Tabbed through my items and realized that it may be a case of how I work in the first place.

15 items on the screen:
1. This Firefox, containing my reply to you
2. Firefox: Gmail, containing my Gtalk conversations
3. Firefox: containing a Trillian Client, containing my non-gtalk conversations
4. Vi window containing the code I'm using
5. Terminal window containing tail of the process I'm watching
6. IE emulation window of the affected test site
7. Firefox window of affected site
8. Email Client for work
9. Email message containing notes for the above glitch
10. RDP window into work machine
11. RDP into work server
12. RDP into test machine: Version of IE 7 is running here with the affected site
13. VNC into dev server: Debugger is working here.
14. VNC into test machine
15. Vi of notes I'm taking for the day

Positionally, these are all over the screens, but each seems to be ordered in the list because it's the next item in line for me to consider. Perhaps there are multiple tracks for multi-tasking that do make each tool considered more useful, but like the use of a mouse as a lift and scoop, I don't have a mental association that would make that use of a mouse make sense.

Is there a catalog of motions you use for a mouse that would be impossible for a tablet? My spy has suggested a larger tablet (http://www.wacom.com/intuos/6x11.cfm) that Wacom actually suggests for multi-monitor solutions, but your insights, since it sounds like your educational endeavors mirror some of my wife's would be most appreciated.

[valadil]

Alt tab combined with multiple desktops on dual display works for me, and I keep a lot of windows open.

I run 2 rows of 4 desktops. The top row runs music, aim/irc, firefox, and thunderbird in the left monitor. The right is for stickynotes/terminal/nautilus (if I feel like clicking). The row of desktops on the bottom are for things that need to be left running, or for things that spill over from the top set of desktops. For instance I don't want to see all the torrents I have open, so those go in the desktop under music. This keeps me down to 2 or 3 windows per desktop, which works great with alt tab. Desktops are navigating with ctrl-alt-arrowkeys or ctrl-alt-F(number of desktop). I can't even remember the last time I had to minimize something.

Something to keep in mind though is that years of computer use have done bad things to my wrists. The mouse is painful for me. My ergonomic keyboard is not. If I have to use a mouse I try to alternate which hand uses it. Ergo, I've built up habits around not touching the mouse when I don't have to.

Also, for linux folks, screen is a wonderful, wonderful app for managing lots and lots of terminals. It effectively lets you use tabs in a terminal. You start a screen session and run whatever you normally would in that term. What's truly amazing about it is that you can connect to an existing screen session from afar. I do a lot of web design for instance, so I keep a screen open on our server with my .html, .css, .js, and a bash running. If I head home and then realize I forgot to finish something I can log in remotely and pick up the existing screen session and have all those terms how I left them.

[Reinboom]

-snip-

Mouse motions, 1st one of the note:
A quick crescent + middle roller mix to highlight what I snipped in one quick motion while leaving the quote tags. (I then proceeded to type -snip-, of course).
The lift and scoop thing: Yes, I believe everyone does it to reorient themselves with the screen. However, I have my mouse sensitivity up a bit to quickly get to the location I need.
And whilst typing this - I have noticed I use the mouse wheel probably the most of any portion of the mouse.

I can't really describe motions other than these, since most of the time it's just directing the pointer, and it's done without much conscious effort.
Precision isn't key to me, getting things done (in my haphazard manner) is. When I need precision I can switch easily, however, most of my concentrated effort is into the speed of the task.

For multitasking... my current list (on Windows XP):
A bandwidth meter
This reply (firefox - with 3 tabs, first being my classtables webscript, 2nd being a forum administrator page, 3rd being this page)
Chatroom
Notepad++
A directory of various common php files I use.
JoyToKey (was testing how quickly I could respond to things using my joypad)
Photoshop CS3
Messenger Window
FireFox Error Console
Notepad
Thunderbird

This is early in the day, I normally have much more active to switch between including:
game design notes
a game of some kind
multiple browser pages (and occasionally multiple browsers for page testing)
fireworks cs3
multiple chat windows (this is how I keep in contact with... everyone)
occasional random software
multiple notepads

...opened in no particular order- I open a considerable amount because my mind works that way - scatterbrained - I can't focus for extended periods of time so I tend to keep myself busy and just let my stream of conscious take hold with a handwritten notepad near my keyboard that keeps me at least organized enough to finish tasks.

For the wacom- I can't afford one. Any.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Something to keep in mind though is that years of computer use have done bad things to my wrists. The mouse is painful for me. My ergonomic keyboard is not. If I have to use a mouse I try to alternate which hand uses it. Ergo, I've built up habits around not touching the mouse when I don't have to.

Dude, I'd be careful if I were you... You can get arthritis this way.

[valadil]

Dude, I'd be careful if I were you... You can get arthritis this way.

Yeah, I've been real good about my wrists since they first started getting problematic. The ergonomic keyboard helps a ton. I also try to avoid typing when they're bad instead of ignoring the pain like a man. I keep a list of wrist exercises/stretches in my cubicle and my comp is set to freeze for 4 minutes every 45 so that I actually do them. Oh and I took up playing guitar since that encourages a different kind of movement. Now they're only problematic when the weather is bad, but I still don't want to see them get worse.