LinuxMint...taking over Ubuntu?

[iamwhatiseem]

Hardly.
Most Microsoft "haters" (like myself) are more advanced users. And as more advanced users we are not so inclined to get rolled over every couple years when M$ decides it is time to release the next great OS...which of course means a whole new office suite that they purposely include code so that all previous versions will not open the documents even though they are 100% capable of doing so without that code entry.

LOL seriously, when was the last time you used a Microsoft program? The last time you could not open a previous version of a word document in a new version of office was over a decade ago if not more. I think it was when they went from windows 95 to 98 or there about.. I remember it happening once and Microsoft released a patch that made it possible. Seriously..

And we are not so inclined to just "take it" when M$ over and over and over releases products that are bug-laden, don't work and then finally after 5-6 years (and 2 OS releases later) they get it right...they bring out the next OS and restart the whole process.

You do realize that there was 6 years between Windows XP and Windows Vista right? Linux distros and kernels almost get upgrade every year if not several times a year.



I used OS/2 and it was great... but sadly too closed and no one made stuff for it and its ability to use DOS programs was bad. So by the time Windows 95 came out OS/2 was dead.



Hmm Windows 98 was brilliant. SE only meant it had a network component and a few bug fixes. Windows 98 came out just as home networks were getting going, and the internet was at its start. What was a nightmare was Windows Millenum which was suppose to be the replacement of Windows 98... on this front I think we can agree... Windows ME sucked donkey balls.



Windows 2000 was good. It was Windows NT and Windows 98 in one. But it was more targeted the professional market than the consumer market. It was the defacto replacement for Windows NT.



Seriously? Windows XP was 7 years old or so when Vista came out.. get your facts straight. SP2 was released in 2004, 3 years before Vista was released... seriously..



LOL are you freaking serious? While Vista had its problems, namely it was TOO SECURE, the OS and the idea behind it was solid. The problem with Vista was it was too much of a nanny system, you know like Linux.. so it required permission to install and do anything pretty much, which pissed people off.

Windows 7 - Windows Vista round 2.

Windows 7 is brilliant lol. I doubt you have even used the OS since you call it Vista round 2.. Windows 7 is ultra stable, and unless you want to run 16 bit programs then most things run on it. Only issue is the lack of drivers for older printers and such, but that is not the fault of Mircosoft or Windows.. but of the 3rd party manufactures not making the drivers.

This is why we don't like Microsoft.

No you dont like Microsoft because you got it into your head over a decade ago that Microsoft is bad. By the comments you have made here, I can clearly say that you have not even tried to use Windows 7.

Man...c'mon.

1) I said that M$ writes into code that NEW office documents can't be opened by PREVIOUS versions...how you could get this backwards is odd...this is a well known tactic by M$ to ensure everyone is forced to upgrade.
2) IBM successfully sued M$ after they proved that M$ had written code into their software to detect that a user was using a DOS that wasn't MS-DOS...and sabotaged the install and therefore the software did not run properly. This is documented.
3) IBM and Mozilla successfully sued M$ when they wrote into Windows 98 code to purposely run Netscape slow. This is documented.
4) Jesus...are you not embarrassed? You have GOT to be a Microsoft certified tech to believe the horseshit you just said about Win98se. Or you went to their website one or the other. I was in IT at the time. Win98se was sent free to businesses everywhere to install over Win98. It's sole purpose was to address well know problems with Win98 - namely the daily - actually multiple times a day "blue screen of death" occurrences.
5) XP was Windows ME fixed. Pure and simple. Of course it had numerous improvements...years had gone by. But it was still very much Win 98 on the NT filesystem.
6) Windows Vista was roundly rejected by everyone. As I stated, PC manufacturers for the first time stopped shipping computers with it and went back to XP. I didn't do that...they did. Vista was also damn slow.
7) Windows 7 is Vista fixed. We unfortunately have 2 Win7 machines in our office. They have serious login issues when running multiple logins. Inexplicably an owner of a document cannot access their own damn file. It happens fairly often. Outside of that - Windows 7 is a clear upgrade from Vista. And yes it is stable...but...mark my words...M$ will abandon it within a few years and will come out with the "next great OS" which will rebbot the same chain of events they have done for now 20 years.

 

[PeteEU]

1) I said that M$ writes into code that NEW office documents can't be opened by PREVIOUS versions...how you could get this backwards is odd...this is a well known tactic by M$ to ensure everyone is forced to upgrade.

Download Details - Microsoft Download Center - Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint File Formats

Works like a charm. Can easily open Office 2010 documents in my Office 2003 or 2000. And if you say but what about older Office's then.. grow up, few still use a decade old piece of software and those that do, should get their head examined.

2) IBM successfully sued M$ after they proved that M$ had written code into their software to detect that a user was using a DOS that wasn't MS-DOS...and sabotaged the install and therefore the software did not run properly. This is documented.

And yet OS/2 died long before that. It lost the battle to Windows NT, since OS/2 was directed towards the business community. OS/2 had one huge problem... lack of support and developers. IBM never managed to convince people it was the way to go.

3) IBM and Mozilla successfully sued M$ when they wrote into Windows 98 code to purposely run Netscape slow. This is documented.

Netscape was dead by then too. Microsoft was wrong in the way it did things, I agree, but the fact is other companies are to this day getting away with the same monopolistic methods as Microsoft. Apple comes to mind and its iTunes store.

And for the record, people have grown up and now Internet Explorer is close to loosing its monopoly... only ironic thing is, it aint to Firefox aka Mozilla.

4) Jesus...are you not embarrassed? You have GOT to be a Microsoft certified tech to believe the horseshit you just said about Win98se. Or you went to their website one or the other. I was in IT at the time. Win98se was sent free to businesses everywhere to install over Win98. It's sole purpose was to address well know problems with Win98 - namely the daily - actually multiple times a day "blue screen of death" occurrences.

LOL first off any business who used Windows 98 must have had their head examined. Most business then used Windows NT which came out in 93. Also "blue screen of death" were no where near daily or common back then, and usually were the result of 3rd party programs/drivers. I ran windows 98 for years with very small problems and only upgraded to SE because of the network additions.

5) XP was Windows ME fixed. Pure and simple. Of course it had numerous improvements...years had gone by. But it was still very much Win 98 on the NT filesystem.

LOL yea live in a fantasy world. None of this is factual. Windows ME was based on Windows 98, and was suppose to be the last of the 9x systems. Windows XP was based on Windows NT. So how can XP be Windows ME fixed? If anything it was Windows 2000 fixed..

6) Windows Vista was roundly rejected by everyone. As I stated, PC manufacturers for the first time stopped shipping computers with it and went back to XP. I didn't do that...they did. Vista was also damn slow.

It required more resources to run AERO yes, but Vista can be configured to run just as good as XP speed wise (Windows 7 even faster). The problem with Vista was UAC, pure and simple. For decades Windows (rightfully) had been made fun by the Linux and Mac communities for its lack of security. UAC was the answer to this but it was too intrusive and pissed off the average user and of course administrators.

7) Windows 7 is Vista fixed. We unfortunately have 2 Win7 machines in our office. They have serious login issues when running multiple logins. Inexplicably an owner of a document cannot access their own damn file. It happens fairly often.

So you lack the skills to set it up correctly.. how is that the fault of Microsoft or Windows? You do realize that when you are logged as a different user (non-administrator) then you cant get access to others files.. right?

Outside of that - Windows 7 is a clear upgrade from Vista. And yes it is stable...but...mark my words...M$ will abandon it within a few years and will come out with the "next great OS" which will rebbot the same chain of events they have done for now 20 years.

Here you are correct.. next year most likely when Windows 8 will come out, an OS made for both the desktop and the tablet and phone. From what I have seen so far, the OS is quite good, but of course needs a few tweaks. But by then Windows 7 will be 3 years old, quite old for an OS if you look at the various Linux Distros or Mac OSX who update almost once a year if not more.

Oh and btw, I see Linux Mint is coming out with a new version now... DAMN UPGRADES!!! , aint that what you are complaining about? You cant beat Linux Mint in upgrades.. started in 2006 and they are already at version 12 lol. That is over twice a year!!!!!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ahh...you discovered Google.

 

[PeteEU]

Mac is now using INTEL processors and motherboards.

That dont make it easy to install on a non Mac.. in fact it is damn hard if not near impossible. Due to the closed environment of Mac OSX, drivers are a huge problem (getting simple things like USB and headphones to work is a pain), and of course the fact that as it stands now (last I looked a few weeks ago), the ability to install Lion (newest OS) on a non Mac is non existent and the only way is to install it is by having a Mac (defeats the purpose kinda) or installing Snow Leopard (previous version) first and then upgrade.

And of course if Apple finds out then they would probably just sue you since it is against their terms of usage.

 

[Ringel05]

Mac is now using INTEL processors and motherboards.

That dont make it easy to install on a non Mac.. in fact it is damn hard if not near impossible. Due to the closed environment of Mac OSX, drivers are a huge problem (getting simple things like USB and headphones to work is a pain), and of course the fact that as it stands now (last I looked a few weeks ago), the ability to install Lion (newest OS) on a non Mac is non existent and the only way is to install it is by having a Mac (defeats the purpose kinda) or installing Snow Leopard (previous version) first and then upgrade.

And of course if Apple finds out then they would probably just sue you since it is against their terms of usage.

Ya missed the point, Mac is no longer an overpriced all inclusive Mac it's now an overpriced OS on an Intel frame.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Mac is now using INTEL processors and motherboards.

That dont make it easy to install on a non Mac.. in fact it is damn hard if not near impossible. Due to the closed environment of Mac OSX, drivers are a huge problem (getting simple things like USB and headphones to work is a pain), and of course the fact that as it stands now (last I looked a few weeks ago), the ability to install Lion (newest OS) on a non Mac is non existent and the only way is to install it is by having a Mac (defeats the purpose kinda) or installing Snow Leopard (previous version) first and then upgrade.

And of course if Apple finds out then they would probably just sue you since it is against their terms of usage.

Ya missed the point, Mac is no longer an overpriced all inclusive Mac it's now an overpriced OS on an Intel frame.

Historically they were not really overpriced...they were built in America....BIG difference in quality.
The Mac's of the 90's lasted for-ev-er. When I was in IT the newsrooms/composing were all Macs...we practically never touched them in the 7-8 years we had them. Rock solid hardware.
As years went by, and Jobs returned, Apple had no choice but to outsource labor to Japan and China. He hated it, but the iMacs were going to cost $2000 each if they manufactured them in California...which meant of course they wasn't going to sell a single one. So they moved production overseas and kept the price at $1200.
Today - OSX is a terrific OS. The hardware? I hate them...they may look good, but the keyboards/mouse are a joke. No keypad? Seriously?? Batteries only last about 4-6 weeks in the mouse? - umm No. We bought two keyboards and a corded mouse.
And the friggin power button on the back side of the unit...means you have to turn the thing all the way around to see where it is. All of the USB jacks are on the back of the unit...there is no "backup hole" in the CD drive to manually get a CD out - so I don't know what you are supposed to do if something happens there.
In comparison to Dells/HP etc. - they are faaar superior in styling/dependability/quality of hardware
When Dell and HP etc. make their boxes out of brushed aluminum and higher quality components - then it is fair to say they are overpriced.
It just isn't apples to apples...pun intended

 

[PeteEU]

That dont make it easy to install on a non Mac.. in fact it is damn hard if not near impossible. Due to the closed environment of Mac OSX, drivers are a huge problem (getting simple things like USB and headphones to work is a pain), and of course the fact that as it stands now (last I looked a few weeks ago), the ability to install Lion (newest OS) on a non Mac is non existent and the only way is to install it is by having a Mac (defeats the purpose kinda) or installing Snow Leopard (previous version) first and then upgrade.

And of course if Apple finds out then they would probably just sue you since it is against their terms of usage.

Ya missed the point, Mac is no longer an overpriced all inclusive Mac it's now an overpriced OS on an Intel frame.

Historically they were not really overpriced...they were built in America....BIG difference in quality.

Agree on that. The old Macs and Apple were "quality" but soon they became too expensive since the IBM machines and their clones were dominating the market and pressing prices down.

The Mac's of the 90's lasted for-ev-er. When I was in IT the newsrooms/composing were all Macs...we practically never touched them in the 7-8 years we had them. Rock solid hardware.

Also just about the only place they were

As years went by, and Jobs returned, Apple had no choice but to outsource labor to Japan and China. He hated it, but the iMacs were going to cost $2000 each if they manufactured them in California...which meant of course they wasn't going to sell a single one. So they moved production overseas and kept the price at $1200.

And still not sell! You missed that point. If it had not been first for Microsoft pumping money into Apple, and then the iPod/iTunes then Apple would have gone bust long ago.

Today - OSX is a terrific OS.

Debatable. It is a closed system that is full of bugs and has suffered from lack of backwards compatibility for even Apple's own products... talking about Lion here. That they could release a new OS with a major wireless bug in it is frankly shocking... considering that Apple is all about the wireless these days. Dont get me wrong, the OS is smoothish and nice when it works... but when the damn thing breaks down then it is a nightmare to figure out what went wrong.. there are quite a few funny Youtube videos on the subject.. my favourit is the Mac Book Pro that keeps playing the same song over and over despite being closed and a blank screen and unable to boot up..

The hardware? I hate them...they may look good, but the keyboards/mouse are a joke. No keypad? Seriously?? Batteries only last about 4-6 weeks in the mouse? - umm No. We bought two keyboards and a corded mouse.
And the friggin power button on the back side of the unit...means you have to turn the thing all the way around to see where it is. All of the USB jacks are on the back of the unit...there is no "backup hole" in the CD drive to manually get a CD out - so I don't know what you are supposed to do if something happens there.

You forget to mention the 30% to 50% mark up on average products. Oh and remember no CDs in the new versions of most Macs. The CD/DVD is dead after all according to Apple. I remember their newest back up system the isomething... says on the box it has a server standard harddrive... no it does not and costs 300 dollars... it is basically a fancy box with a standard harddisk in.

In comparison to Dells/HP etc. - they are faaar superior in styling/dependability/quality of hardware
When Dell and HP etc. make their boxes out of brushed aluminum and higher quality components - then it is fair to say they are overpriced.
It just isn't apples to apples...pun intended

Acer makes nice cases also, very modular. But I agree. Only problem with Dell has been they have gone away from standard hardware and started to make proprietary shit so you cant fix broken hardware yourself that easily.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Pete...you need to read up a little.
It was Apple that kept Microsoft alive early on.
in 1984 Apple's revenue was over $830 million, Microsoft - $43 million.
IBM was heavily courting Apple to license the MacOs...if it wasn't for Steve Job's refusal and control-freak attitude IBM would have been selling Apple II clones and MS-DOS would have been a side note somewhere. IBM wanted Apple's OS.
Something only an unbiased person can say --> In the early days, Apple and M$ needed each other. After Apple's massive failure with Lisa and the first Macintosh..they were in bad financial shape, and Microsofts cash infusion was a lifesaver. Indeed Apple was 6 months from bankruptcy (as written in the last book) However, without "borrowing" Apple's GUI code - Windows would have been years behind everyone else.
Window shading, the ability to place one window over another, curser movement without the mouse pointer shaking and jerking across the screen instead of a consistent flow with the users movement etc. etc. etc. - all were borrowed from Apple code.

Microsoft wrote a lot of code for Apple...at least as much as they "borrowed" back in return.

 

[PeteEU]

Pete...you need to read up a little.

And you need to read up even more.

It was Apple that kept Microsoft alive early on.
in 1984 Apple's revenue was over $830 million, Microsoft - $43 million.

Yes, in 1984 during the height of the PC wars. Already here Microsoft was winning since IBM had already chosen MS-DOS. There was at this time already far more IBM-PCs and clones than there was Apple machines.

Also I dont know where you get your figures but they are sooooo wrong.

Apple had in 1984 a revenue 1.5 billion and a profit of 64 million dollars
Microsoft had in 1984 97.5 million in revenues.

There is no doubt that early on Apple was a far bigger company than Microsoft, since Apple sold physical things and not a software program... but that changed fast.

Want to compare IBM revenue vs Apple.. a much comparable, since both sold computers.. Microsoft did not.

IBM was heavily courting Apple to license the MacOs...if it wasn't for Steve Job's refusal and control-freak attitude IBM would have been selling Apple II clones and MS-DOS would have been a side note somewhere. IBM wanted Apple's OS.

Yes, and Steve Jobs blew it and constantly blew it for a decade (and in some ways still is). Instead IBM went first OS/2 way along with Microsoft, and later when Microsoft dumped OS/2 and made Windows, IBM reluctantly followed suit... but by this time IBM was a bystander in the PC business.

Microsoft pumped 150 million dollars into Apple in 1997, the year that Apple had yet another negative year with over a billion dollars in losses, and that was a lot back then considering they only had 7 billion in sales.

Something only an unbiased person can say --> In the early days, Apple and M$ needed each other. After Apple's massive failure with Lisa and the first Macintosh..they were in bad financial shape, and Microsofts cash infusion was a lifesaver. Indeed Apple was 6 months from bankruptcy (as written in the last book) However, without "borrowing" Apple's GUI code - Windows would have been years behind everyone else.

So you admit that Microsoft saved Apple? Even Jobs admit that the Microsoft infusion was a life saver..

Window shading, the ability to place one window over another, curser movement without the mouse pointer shaking and jerking across the screen instead of a consistent flow with the users movement etc. etc. etc. - all were borrowed from Apple code.

Yes yes whatever. Did Apple also invent the monitor and the English language?

Microsoft wrote a lot of code for Apple...at least as much as they "borrowed" back in return.

And Apple has "borrowed" tons of code and ideas from others and it is the basis of their business today... they call it innovation, while realists call it copying or stealing. Even Steve Jobs admitted it several times.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't know if I would say that Steve Jobs blew it after he came back.
Apple in late 1990's was again on the brink of bankruptcy. Jobs was CEO of Pixar at the time.
After Jobs came back, instead of losing over $1 billion the year before, they made $450 million in profit.
Today Apple makes more profit than Microsoft. Revolutionized the music industry, the cell phone industry, the tablet PC industry and was on their way to revamping how people watch TV.

Apple is a huuuuuuuuge success today, the most valuable tech company in the world. And make no mistake about it - Jobs did that.
That is not failure.

 

[PeteEU]

I don't know if I would say that Steve Jobs blew it after he came back.
Apple in late 1990's was again on the brink of bankruptcy. Jobs was CEO of Pixar at the time.
After Jobs came back, instead of losing over $1 billion the year before, they made $450 million in profit.
Today Apple makes more profit than Microsoft. Revolutionized the music industry, the cell phone industry, the tablet PC industry and was on their way to revamping how people watch TV.

Apple is a huuuuuuuuge success today, the most valuable tech company in the world. And make no mistake about it - Jobs did that.
That is not failure.

I agree, but will it last. Will Apple become the next Kodak, Xerox and Klennex? As it stands now, yes. Synonymous with a product line but one of the minor players in the market.. or in Kodak's case almost bankrupt.

Apple's share of the tablet market is falling and projected to be under 50% in 2 years. They are betting a lot on the tablet market, but already they are seeing weak sales (they cut production for one). I think the "bet" that tablets will be the next PC market is a bad one.. there are so many things you simply cant do with a tablet and then there is price. So many people in the 30+ range comment to me always.. where is the keyboard and dont like the on screen keyboard of a tablet. If they then have to buy a keyboard for the tablet, then many rightly so say.. why not a laptop? An iPad plus a keyboard and mouse costs a freaking fortune and still you cant do all you want compared to a laptop which costs less.

Apple's share of the phone market is at best stagnant, and worst falling. They might have the best selling single phones, but market share wise they are not number one. Both Samsung and HTC have passed them in number of smartphone sold and Android is cleaning their clock. Windows Phone could be a major problem as well, since it is easier to use than iOS, one of iOS biggest selling points, and is integrated with Windows desktop versions.. something iOS is not. Also their release of their newest product the 4s has been plagued by problems. Sure it sold a lot thanks to fanboys, but SIRI, the main selling point only works in the US fully and has had its issues ... being down quite a lot.. and one has to ask.. is it really that useful as they claim? I have my doubts. On top of that is the battery scandal which still has not been solved over a month after release... a phone that only lasts 6 hours on battery is a failure pure and simple. This use to be not a problem since Apple iPhone was the best on the market and had certain lee way when it came to issues (antenna gate comes to mind), but no more. The Samsung Galaxy S II is better than even the iPhone 4s as are some of HTCs and Motorola's newest.. both lighter and thinner and with better screens (more selling points Apple cant use any more). There are alternatives now and alternatives that hardware wise are ahead of Apple, and in some case far ahead... and it shows. Biggest problem for the future for the phone division... Apple never really got into the emerging markets with its iPhone..and with Nokia, a real big brand in the 3rd world, coming out with Windows Phones then that might be a huge problem for Apple and in part Android. Nokia is still the nr. 1 phone maker in India followed by Blackberry with Apple barely on the charts.. and India is the future..

Apple's share of the PC market has been rising in some markets (US and UK mostly) thanks to the iPhone and iPad, but still it is barely 10% of the market, and still seen as a far too expensive for most users. Plus as we both know, migrating from one OS to another is not something average people do. But Macs will continue to be dominant in the publishing/TV/movie business no doubt about that, just as Windows will continue to be dominant everywhere else and Linux in the server world.

iPod has had falling sales for a while now thanks ironically enough to the iPhone and other smart phones. There is simply no need for a dedicated music player, especially at that price. Sure Apple has tried to remake it into a gaming machine but that has failed.

The only thing Apple has going for it self, is iTunes. That is probaly the best product to come out of Apple ever, even though their windows version is more malware than software. But even here Apple is getting big time competition from Amazon (who just needs to promote their service!!!) and others (Spotify) and of course soon Google Music. Considering Apple iTunes is expensive relatively speaking compared to alternatives, then one has to ask how long that domination will last. Already you can in some services add your iTunes collection so you dont need iTunes any more.. and with all smart phones being an "ipod" like device now, then why buy an iPod?

But in the end Apple is more about image and PR than actual products. With the well formed image of "Macs just work" and Apple makes perfect products and are secure slowly but surely being eroded by scandal after scandal and the fact the more popular you get the more people target your products for hacking and so on... then the future of Apple is not as bright as the company and its backers might think it is. For one there are more and more studies showing that Apple products are turning into "what my father has" than the hip new product it was just a few years ago.. and hence turning off the youth. If that is true and it continues, then Apple is in serious problems since that is what happened to Nokia.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Apple is and has always been a terribly insecure OS.
In fact, it was rated the least secure OS of all last year - and deservedly so.
Strangely enough iOS is rated one of the most secure...go figure.

Apple is worse than Microsoft at reacting to discovered vulnerabilities. After so many complaints and server 2003 sales began to erode heavily - at least M$ did react and server 2007 and Win 7 is far more secure than it's predecessors. Apple on the other hand either outright ignores security issues or at best is incredibly slow to release security patches.

As for Apples's future. Depends on who takes the reigns.
The reason Apple grew wildly successful after 2000 was because their ability to make decisions lightning fast...afterall Jobs was absolutely the Apple dictator like no other CEO on the planet. For instance with the iPod/iTunes interactivity. Steve Jobs created all of this in less than 2 years...managed to get virtually every record label on board and produced a way to legally buy music like no other. In the words of Bill Gates "We are once again caught flat footed, how did Apple get the record companies to agree? How did he do what no one else could? ....How long before he releases iTunes on the PC?" (leaked memo in the book "Steve Jobs". Microsoft went on to produce the Zune to compete, but at it's height it never even reached 5% of the market...they were once again smoked by Apple.

If Apple cannot get a CEO that was as innovative and creative as Jobs, could see a product before it was produced - then yes I agree - they will crash and burn.

 

[PeteEU]

Linux Mint 12 is not good.. just installed it, and go all sorts of annoying issues with it. Hope they fix it with updates. Plus their new UI system sucks almost as much as Ubuntu's...

 

[Ringel05]

Linux Mint 12 is not good.. just installed it, and go all sorts of annoying issues with it. Hope they fix it with updates. Plus their new UI system sucks almost as much as Ubuntu's...

Which means you're probably running pure GNOME 3.2 or MATE, a GNOME 2.x fork instead of Mint Gnome Shell Extensions (MGSE).

 

[PeteEU]

Linux Mint 12 is not good.. just installed it, and go all sorts of annoying issues with it. Hope they fix it with updates. Plus their new UI system sucks almost as much as Ubuntu's...

Which means you're probably running pure GNOME 3.2 or MATE, a GNOME 2.x fork instead of Mint Gnome Shell Extensions (MGSE).

I am running what Linux Mint 12 installed. It is considerably different than Linux Mint 11. If Linux Mint or any Linux distro wants to become a serious alternative to Windows then it needs to not change that drastically. Windows has not changed much since windows 95 when it comes to accessing menus.

Plus with the added bonus that if you have the settings menu up and do something else.. browse, chat, install something and so on, then there is a large chance that every single graphical interface part but the settings menu poofs and you can not get rid of the settings menu or do anything else, since the X part of the settings menu also poofs. Only way I have so far found is to hard reboot the machine. Hardly good if you ask me.

Will fiddle more with it later today but if I can not get these things fixed, then I will go back to version 11 or head back to Ubuntu or some alternative.

 

[Douger]

Load SalineOS. You won't be disappointed.......unless you're a Gnome or KDE slave.

 

[PeteEU]

Load SalineOS. You won't be disappointed.......unless you're a Gnome or KDE slave.

I am "something that looks like windows as much as possible slave".. and works.

 

[Douger]

Load SalineOS. You won't be disappointed.......unless you're a Gnome or KDE slave.

I am "something that looks like windows as much as possible slave".. and works.

In other words you hate learning.Are you a murkin living in the EU or a REAL European ?
SalineOS will do everything you want if you spend 1 hour mucking with the XFCE settings(panel adjustments).

 

[PeteEU]

Load SalineOS. You won't be disappointed.......unless you're a Gnome or KDE slave.

I am "something that looks like windows as much as possible slave".. and works.

In other words you hate learning.Are you a murkin living in the EU or a REAL European ?

No, I hate wasting my time on bugs that should not happen.

Changing settings or installing programs should be seem less and easy. Linux Mint is better than most I have tried, but still a long way to go.

It took a while to get Google Chrome installed because Linux Mint does not include it in its software package. I had to go via Terminal since the built in install program refused to work... unacceptable.

SalineOS will do everything you want if you spend 1 hour mucking with the XFCE settings(panel adjustments).

Will take a look.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am "something that looks like windows as much as possible slave".. and works.

In other words you hate learning.Are you a murkin living in the EU or a REAL European ?

No, I hate wasting my time on bugs that should not happen.

Changing settings or installing programs should be seem less and easy. Linux Mint is better than most I have tried, but still a long way to go.

It took a while to get Google Chrome installed because Linux Mint does not include it in its software package. I had to go via Terminal since the built in install program refused to work... unacceptable.

SalineOS will do everything you want if you spend 1 hour mucking with the XFCE settings(panel adjustments).

Will take a look.

Clearly you don't understand how operating system releases work.
I would never install a brand new release on a main machine...they put out the "x.0" versions to find what the bugs are so they can fix them...you know...the same thing Windows does except you have to pay them to help them figure out what is wrong...and when they fix all the bugs - they call it a new OS.
I am still running Ubuntu 10.04...and it is flawless. I will switch to Mint 11 soon.