Linux Distributions

[PeteEU]

Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM???? Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.

No question about it. On lower end machines, Linux is the way to go.

On machines with under 1 GB ram I would agree.. they are mostly half a decade old any ways. With a machine with 1 GB ram and over.. hell no. Windows 7 Starter works just fine with 1 GB ram.

Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.

For Win7, I want 64 bit and at least 6GB of DDR3.

Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.

It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.

 

[PeteEU]

Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.

It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.

It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

32 bit Windows programs based on the Microsoft Foundation Class are only capable of addressing 2gb of memory. These will certainly run just fine on a 2gb machine.

Since I DO run Photoshop, SQL 2008R2 and other demanding applications, I care about RAM and I run a 64bit OS.

Also, would you try to apply a deguas filter to a raw image in Gimp on a Mint machine with only a gig of ram? I sure wouldn't. The same rules apply for Linux.

 

[Ringel05]

It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

As long as you use a 32 bit OS Win 7 works just as well as any of the not so lightweight Linux distros on a (relatively) low RAM machine. My "test" machine is a Dell Inspiron 4550, Pentium 4, 2.66GHz with one GB of DDR ram with IDE drives. I keep a copy of Win 7 Pro loaded on an extra hard drive and when I switch out the drives from my Linux loads the Win 7 works great...... all the features.

 

[PeteEU]

It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

 

[Ringel05]

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.
Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.

 

[PeteEU]

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.
Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.

So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.

And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer /wave HP, Canon and so on.

 

[PeteEU]

This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?

Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.

When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.

That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".

Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.

 

[Douger]

So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.

And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer /wave HP, Canon and so on.

That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.

Who's using Debian?

 

[Ringel05]

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?

Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.

When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.

That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".

Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.

Here's where I go, sure thing Skippy.......... not even a very good effort at minimizing a non-microsoft product's well documented usage. I think you'd be surprised the number of (non-nerd) professionals and non-professionals who use Open Office, even for work related projects they have on their personal computers.

 

[Ringel05]

So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.

And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer /wave HP, Canon and so on.

That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.

Who's using Debian?

Good thing I build my own non expensive, high end gaming machines, eh Hugo?
Wouldn't want to be known as a moron...........

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.

Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.
Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.

So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.

And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer /wave HP, Canon and so on.

Those "Morons" are some of the biggest companies in America.
AGFA/FUJI/EFI/Kodak etc.
I don't have problems with printers, and our printers are probably newer than you have.
And running a client-side app is not the same as regular programs - you should know this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.

When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.

Shees - that sounds like when we "upgraded" from Office 2003 to 2007. It didn't look or act like the users were used too and was buggy as hell.

That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".

?

Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.

During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"

I never had anyone turn their nose up at it.

Yeah, I'm not going to use it at work, but for the home user? Open office is great, and the price is perfect.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.

They should be like you, and stick to only surfing porn....

Who's using Debian?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"

(My emphasis)
This is exactly the same response I get when I turn people on to OpenOffice. "Why doesn't everyone use it?"
Microsoft has a wonderful gig in Office...give medium and large companies great deals on enterprise Office editions that they receive updated Office software as soon as it comes out.
Then these people start "polluting" the network with these brand new docs that others can't open unless they download a patch that they don't even know is out there...so they too go out and buy the "new" Office.
Adobe does the same damn thing with their products.

HOWEVER - their is a new guy in town - Google Docs. Google "office" enterprise is exactly half of the cost of MS Office enterprise. And companies are switching to Google cloud by the 1,000's. Our corporation did this year - the savings? - $78,000 annually.

 

[Douger]

If you walk into the board at MicroShit and scream CLOUD, they piss their pants and hide under a desk.

 

[PeteEU]

Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.

When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.

Shees - that sounds like when we "upgraded" from Office 2003 to 2007. It didn't look or act like the users were used too and was buggy as hell.

I know what you are saying, but that is the fact of life. It is the very reason that the graphics industry does not dump Apple for Windows or Linux, and the reason that the corporate world does not dump Windows for Apple or Linux.... people freak out over new things. Not to mention the money it costs to re-educate someone in a new program/OS.

That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".

?

Yea you heard me. People ask if they can use Word on an iPad or Excel. It is especially the older generations. They expect the iPad to be a computer, and are very disappointed with they find out it is nothing but a glorified ebook reader with extra functions.

Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.

During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"

I never had anyone turn their nose up at it.

Yeah, I'm not going to use it at work, but for the home user? Open office is great, and the price is perfect.

Now I admit I have not played with open office for the last year or so, but like it or not, open office when I was using it, was infuriatingly clumsy compared to Microsoft Office. Does it still ask you like Works if you want to start a new project, document and so on when you run one it? Most people I know, freaked out when they started it up and saw this. I stopped pushing Open office on people because of the time spent explaining them that it was like office even though it did not look like office or acted like office. Also the stigma of not being able to open office documents in Open Office still sticks out with many.

Oh and who pays for Office any ways?