50 Open Source Replacements for Windows XP

[iamwhatiseem]

And to go on to say...I have installed Linux on 100's of computers since the mid 90's.
I have also installed and maintained dozens of web servers, email servers, file servers, domain servers on and on.
In the past 5 years I have probably installed Linux, including replacing older versions, at least 25 times. AND I HAVE HAD NOT ONE INSTANCE of these nightmarish problems you have had. Not once. And I have installed them on many different brands and setups.

 

[Ringel05]

Hmmm we can supply Isis with an I phone for each member, within a month they will all be walking around like zombies..... then someone can walk up and hit them with a club while they are busy texting.

Or Maybe Obama should send in the A10 Warthog tank killing aircraft

When people try Linux - everyone of them ask the same question - "why isn't everyone using this?"
I always say for the same reason we are still using internal combustion engines in our cars. We should have long - looonnng ago built a better power train than a gasoline engine. But there are too many industries that depend on that motor - so nothing changes.
Same with the PC market.
If/when Windows is ever beat, I think it will be something like Chromebook. I bought my wife one, it is infinitely better than a surface for people like my wife who only use a computer to look up recipes, youtube, face book and browse the internet. They are sooooo much faster than Windows...and should be since all it is is a browser.

Windows is not a retarded system. Just like combustion engines, it is highly developed and still lacks of serious alternatives. Electric cars for example. Back then in 1900, electric cars were the big majority. Now, electric cars have neither the range nor the power of a normal car.
Linux, whereas, is a freeware based system whose users only use freeware. Once one figured out the differences between a freeware office and Microsoft Office, that one knows why people pay so much for it.
Few Linux programs are paid. Of course. Its just like to offer your paid program for 50 bucks at the pirate bay. Although it is not the same, the result is.
I don´t believe that the world domination of Windows will be broken. And it is good that we have a single OS with that one can do all the things available. Linux users are often also Linux prophets who ignore the limitations the OS is shipped with due to a lack of support of 3rd party developers. And there is not a single serious Linux user who has not a Windows version in his dual boot system for exactly that reason.

However, when I seriously tried Ubuntu, it was a mess with lots of malfunctions and errors. You can read it here, but would have to translate it. It became a funny discussion however:
Habe aus Neugier Ubuntu 10.10 installiert...

Well most of us don't speak German, mine's too rusty to follow the conversation with any competency.
Correct me if I'm wrong, we had a discussion a while back about your Ubuntu experience. Didn't you say you loaded it on an older machine that was running XP?

It was an Asus M2R32-MVP with an AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 and a HD 4870 and 2 GB of DDR 2 800 RAM.

Okay, couple of more questions, what version of Ubuntu did you try, was it one of the stable versions or was it still in beta? Will that setup run Vista, 7 or 8 with no problems?
See where I'm going? I'm questioning your testing parameters and source sample to determine if it was a fair test/comparison.

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Wait...a 2006 board???????????

So...you tried to install a 2014 operating system on an 8 year old motherboard designed to run an operating system that is 13 years old. And you had problems....well....imagine that.
Holy Cow.

 

[Ringel05]

Wait...a 2006 board???????????

So...you tried to install a 2014 operating system on an 8 year old motherboard designed to run an operating system that is 13 years old. And you had problems....well....imagine that.
Holy Cow.

Yeah, ya don't put a jet engine on a Sopwith Camel and claim the engine is bad when it destroys the plane on start up.........

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Hang on...Hang on...I can settle this once and for all.
(No kidding) I have an IBM PC 5150 in my upstairs closet that still works.
I am about to get it out and install Windows 8 on it. I will post problems I run into here.
This will be a true test. It will take me awhile, first thing I have to do is go on ebay and see if I can get a hold of a couple hundred floppy disks to copy files over to...not sure how I am going to do that yet - but once I do I, by God, will tell you how good Windows 8 really is!!!

 

[Ringel05]

Hang on...Hang on...I can settle this once and for all.
(No kidding) I have an IBM PC 5150 in my upstairs closet that still works.
I am about to get it out and install Windows 8 on it. I will post problems I run into here.
This will be a true test. It will take me awhile, first thing I have to do is go on ebay and see if I can get a hold of a couple hundred floppy disks to copy files over to...not sure how I am going to do that yet - but once I do I, by God, will tell you how good Windows 8 really is!!!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Okay...here we go...photographic evidence as they say...Here is a picture of my computer trying to boot up a Windows 8 installer DVD...as it turns out I didn't need to buy 100 floppy disk...the DVD will fit into the slot afterall - neat huh?
Anyway - as you can clearly see here...it won't even boot up. I mean c'mon...this computer will run MSDOS from 1978 - but won't even boot up Windows 8??? So that means Windows 8 is worse than DOS.
I am so pissed.

 

[Iceweasel]

My God. That thing belongs in the Smithsonian.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay...here we go...photographic evidence as they say...Here is a picture of my computer trying to boot up a Windows 8 installer DVD...as it turns out I didn't need to buy 100 floppy disk...the DVD will fit into the slot afterall - neat huh?
Anyway - as you can clearly see here...it won't even boot up. I mean c'mon...this computer will run MSDOS from 1978 - but won't even boot up Windows 8??? So that means Windows 8 is worse than DOS.
I am so pissed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Windows is not a retarded system. Just like combustion engines, it is highly developed and still lacks of serious alternatives. Electric cars for example. Back then in 1900, electric cars were the big majority. Now, electric cars have neither the range nor the power of a normal car.
Linux, whereas, is a freeware based system whose users only use freeware. Once one figured out the differences between a freeware office and Microsoft Office, that one knows why people pay so much for it.
Few Linux programs are paid. Of course. Its just like to offer your paid program for 50 bucks at the pirate bay. Although it is not the same, the result is.
I don´t believe that the world domination of Windows will be broken. And it is good that we have a single OS with that one can do all the things available. Linux users are often also Linux prophets who ignore the limitations the OS is shipped with due to a lack of support of 3rd party developers. And there is not a single serious Linux user who has not a Windows version in his dual boot system for exactly that reason.

However, when I seriously tried Ubuntu, it was a mess with lots of malfunctions and errors. You can read it here, but would have to translate it. It became a funny discussion however:
Habe aus Neugier Ubuntu 10.10 installiert...

Well most of us don't speak German, mine's too rusty to follow the conversation with any competency.
Correct me if I'm wrong, we had a discussion a while back about your Ubuntu experience. Didn't you say you loaded it on an older machine that was running XP?

It was an Asus M2R32-MVP with an AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 and a HD 4870 and 2 GB of DDR 2 800 RAM.

Okay, couple of more questions, what version of Ubuntu did you try, was it one of the stable versions or was it still in beta? Will that setup run Vista, 7 or 8 with no problems?
See where I'm going? I'm questioning your testing parameters and source sample to determine if it was a fair test/comparison.

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

No, Ubuntu 10.10 isn´t a 2014 OS, the MB isn´t cheap or something and you cannot conclude from Vista to Linux. Its like comparing grapes with watermelons. Its some years ago, btw.

 

[Bleipriester]

Okay...here we go...photographic evidence as they say...Here is a picture of my computer trying to boot up a Windows 8 installer DVD...as it turns out I didn't need to buy 100 floppy disk...the DVD will fit into the slot afterall - neat huh?
Anyway - as you can clearly see here...it won't even boot up. I mean c'mon...this computer will run MSDOS from 1978 - but won't even boot up Windows 8??? So that means Windows 8 is worse than DOS.
I am so pissed.

MS-DOS did not exist in 1978. So you better try Obama 10.10 on that hot machine. With long term support (for Islamist terrorists).

 

[Bleipriester]

Wait...a 2006 board???????????

So...you tried to install a 2014 operating system on an 8 year old motherboard designed to run an operating system that is 13 years old. And you had problems....well....imagine that.
Holy Cow.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Okay...here we go...photographic evidence as they say...Here is a picture of my computer trying to boot up a Windows 8 installer DVD...as it turns out I didn't need to buy 100 floppy disk...the DVD will fit into the slot afterall - neat huh?
Anyway - as you can clearly see here...it won't even boot up. I mean c'mon...this computer will run MSDOS from 1978 - but won't even boot up Windows 8??? So that means Windows 8 is worse than DOS.
I am so pissed.

MS-DOS did not exist in 1978. So you better try Obama 10.10 on that hot machine. With long term support (for Islamist terrorists).

Wait...so the 1978 DOS is the only thing you saw wrong here??
Now that's funny.
Obviously this is a parody of your experiment...however no less ridiculous, okay maybe a little. At any rate, millions of people install Linux without such problems. You had trouble. I am going to go out on a limb here and say people have had similar problems trying to install Windows from the ground up. Does that also therefore have some semblance of meaning as to the overall quality of Microsoft? No it doesn't.
Your experience has no bearing whatsoever. If Linux was this bad - NO ONE would use it. Least of all me. I don't have the patience to fight computers anymore, I want them to just work. Which is why I use Mint and not Windows.

 

[Ringel05]

Well most of us don't speak German, mine's too rusty to follow the conversation with any competency.
Correct me if I'm wrong, we had a discussion a while back about your Ubuntu experience. Didn't you say you loaded it on an older machine that was running XP?

It was an Asus M2R32-MVP with an AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 and a HD 4870 and 2 GB of DDR 2 800 RAM.

Okay, couple of more questions, what version of Ubuntu did you try, was it one of the stable versions or was it still in beta? Will that setup run Vista, 7 or 8 with no problems?
See where I'm going? I'm questioning your testing parameters and source sample to determine if it was a fair test/comparison.

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

No, Ubuntu 10.10 isn´t a 2014 OS, the MB isn´t cheap or something and you cannot conclude from Vista to Linux. Its like comparing grapes with watermelons. Its some years ago, btw.

If you wanted to make a valid comparison then Ubuntu 8 or 9 would have worked better. What's funny (strange) is I have an older home built machine, Asus M4A78 Pro mobo, Phenom IIx2 with 2 gigs of RAM DDR2, which ran Ubuntu flawlessly, even 11.10 (with Unity), which I hated. Switched over to Mint and ran that for another couple of years with no problems. Right now it's dual booted with Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10, runs like a charm.

 

[Bleipriester]

Okay...here we go...photographic evidence as they say...Here is a picture of my computer trying to boot up a Windows 8 installer DVD...as it turns out I didn't need to buy 100 floppy disk...the DVD will fit into the slot afterall - neat huh?
Anyway - as you can clearly see here...it won't even boot up. I mean c'mon...this computer will run MSDOS from 1978 - but won't even boot up Windows 8??? So that means Windows 8 is worse than DOS.
I am so pissed.

MS-DOS did not exist in 1978. So you better try Obama 10.10 on that hot machine. With long term support (for Islamist terrorists).

Wait...so the 1978 DOS is the only thing you saw wrong here??
Now that's funny.
Obviously this is a parody of your experiment...however no less ridiculous, okay maybe a little. At any rate, millions of people install Linux without such problems. You had trouble. I am going to go out on a limb here and say people have had similar problems trying to install Windows from the ground up. Does that also therefore have some semblance of meaning as to the overall quality of Microsoft? No it doesn't.
Your experience has no bearing whatsoever. If Linux was this bad - NO ONE would use it. Least of all me. I don't have the patience to fight computers anymore, I want them to just work. Which is why I use Mint and not Windows.

Your problem is that you say I would say Linux is bad because it did not work on my machine properly. I didn´t say that. I did not draw any conclusion from Ubuntu 10.10´s failure. That´s an invention of your brain.

 

[Bleipriester]

It was an Asus M2R32-MVP with an AMD Athlon 6000+ X2 and a HD 4870 and 2 GB of DDR 2 800 RAM.

Okay, couple of more questions, what version of Ubuntu did you try, was it one of the stable versions or was it still in beta? Will that setup run Vista, 7 or 8 with no problems?
See where I'm going? I'm questioning your testing parameters and source sample to determine if it was a fair test/comparison.

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

No, Ubuntu 10.10 isn´t a 2014 OS, the MB isn´t cheap or something and you cannot conclude from Vista to Linux. Its like comparing grapes with watermelons. Its some years ago, btw.

If you wanted to make a valid comparison then Ubuntu 8 or 9 would have worked better. What's funny (strange) is I have an older home built machine, Asus M4A78 Pro mobo, Phenom IIx2 with 2 gigs of RAM DDR2, which ran Ubuntu flawlessly, even 11.10 (with Unity), which I hated. Switched over to Mint and ran that for another couple of years with no problems. Right now it's dual booted with Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10, runs like a charm.

It´s how it is. Period. You cannot except that all OS´s will work properly on all computers.

 

[Bleipriester]

The Win8 start screen was very annoying. MS learned that and offers a start menu once again. But they still forcer their ugly Win8 theme onto Win10 users. That´s not good. That doesn´t change that Windows 8 is a reliably good OS.

Here is where you run into trouble. And why you are accused of being a Windows fanboy.
Windows 8 is a terrible OS for the simple fact it is incredibly annoying to use. Usability should rank really high on what makes a good OS - should it not???
No one cares if under the hood the mechanics are good. If the car is ugly and hard to drive - IT IS A LOUSY AUTOMOBILE!!!
When my son got his new laptop when he started college - it was Windows 8. It was basically unusable, because he needed to g from word to excel to a browser to the media player to see videos to an image viewer back to the campus board back to Word....THIS IS HOW PEOPLE USE A COMPUTER. And Windows 8 made going from program to program a freaking nightmare. How in the hell is that " a good OS"??
That is laughable.
And as far as your opinion on Linux?? Also laughable.
Installing Linux is about as hard as making toast. And you make it sound like it is akin to climbing mount Everest. You point out dozens of things that are - oh so terrible - that really aren't - and gloss over Windows 8's glaring-in your face- problems.
And what does that make you? It starts with an H.

How is switching between programs in Windows 8 different from previous versions?

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, couple of more questions, what version of Ubuntu did you try, was it one of the stable versions or was it still in beta? Will that setup run Vista, 7 or 8 with no problems?
See where I'm going? I'm questioning your testing parameters and source sample to determine if it was a fair test/comparison.

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

No, Ubuntu 10.10 isn´t a 2014 OS, the MB isn´t cheap or something and you cannot conclude from Vista to Linux. Its like comparing grapes with watermelons. Its some years ago, btw.

If you wanted to make a valid comparison then Ubuntu 8 or 9 would have worked better. What's funny (strange) is I have an older home built machine, Asus M4A78 Pro mobo, Phenom IIx2 with 2 gigs of RAM DDR2, which ran Ubuntu flawlessly, even 11.10 (with Unity), which I hated. Switched over to Mint and ran that for another couple of years with no problems. Right now it's dual booted with Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10, runs like a charm.

It´s how it is. Period. You cannot except that all OS´s will work properly on all computers.

Of course they don't but the only ones I have ever had any issues with are P4s and earlier with later versions of Ubuntu and Mint and like Iamwhatiseem I've loaded both on multiple machines though with me it was for neighbors and friends without problem. I lived in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood for years and ended up being the goto guy for all their computer needs. Once they used Linux, and realized I would only charge them for installation and/or reconfiguring they loved it...... obviously. But more than that, they loved the OS, I had so many comments about how they liked it more than Windows.
Me, I'll continue to use both Win 7 and Linux, as for Win 8, not no, hell no, Win 10??????? Not sure, depends on a couple of things, one would be that they bring back the old Windows game package that ended with the introduction of Win 8, I despise their new approach and hate the available games mostly from an ascetic and play stance.

 

[Bleipriester]

The MB was especially designed for Windows XP and requires a Bios udpate to run Vista (and above) properly though it is a 2006 Board. I tried Ubuntu 10.10 and only after several failures after the installation it booted but gave me no sound. After the installation was completed, the syetem did not boot but displayed only error messages. After pressing reset, it still didn´t boot. Reset didn´t help anymore and only after turning the system off and on again it booted.

So basically what you did was take a machine that wouldn't run Vista and up without a BIOs upgrade and ran an equivalent (to Vista +) Linux distribution on that machine, probably a 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit (64 bit was unstable on older machines at that time) and that's where your making your comparison from.........?
You are aware of the scientific method..... right? One doesn't test compare grapes and watermelons to prove both are supposed to be the same thing, one tests different varieties of grapes to make valid comparisons of similar items.

No, Ubuntu 10.10 isn´t a 2014 OS, the MB isn´t cheap or something and you cannot conclude from Vista to Linux. Its like comparing grapes with watermelons. Its some years ago, btw.

If you wanted to make a valid comparison then Ubuntu 8 or 9 would have worked better. What's funny (strange) is I have an older home built machine, Asus M4A78 Pro mobo, Phenom IIx2 with 2 gigs of RAM DDR2, which ran Ubuntu flawlessly, even 11.10 (with Unity), which I hated. Switched over to Mint and ran that for another couple of years with no problems. Right now it's dual booted with Windows 7 and Ubuntu 13.10, runs like a charm.

It´s how it is. Period. You cannot except that all OS´s will work properly on all computers.

Of course they don't but the only ones I have ever had any issues with are P4s and earlier with later versions of Ubuntu and Mint and like Iamwhatiseem I've loaded both on multiple machines though with me it was for neighbors and friends without problem. I lived in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood for years and ended up being the goto guy for all their computer needs. Once they used Linux, and realized I would only charge them for installation and/or reconfiguring they loved it...... obviously. But more than that, they loved the OS, I had so many comments about how they liked it more than Windows.
Me, I'll continue to use both Win 7 and Linux, as for Win 8, not no, hell no, Win 10??????? Not sure, depends on a couple of things, one would be that they bring back the old Windows game package that ended with the introduction of Win 8, I despise their new approach and hate the available games mostly from an ascetic and play stance.

If those guys like Linux, fine - no problem for me.
I have unetbootin that allows me to download various distros (or use already stored images) and store them directly to an USB-stick. Very easy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If those guys like Linux, fine - no problem for me.
I have unetbootin that allows me to download various distros (or use already stored images) and store them directly to an USB-stick. Very easy.

It isn't so much about what we like, it is about what works best.
Good example, our main file server was an old Dell Poweredge we inherited from a sister company. It began to have hardware problems so it needed to be replaced.
Two options...buy a cheap server running Win Server 2008 with minimum 2TB of disk space.
About $850-$1000.
Or...buy a regular PC, pop in a couple TB drives and install Mint...$400. Complete with synced backup (free of course) no need for viruse protection...so save $ there.

#1 - Windows...a good $1000 at least
#2 - Linux...$400.