The end of windows XP and Microsoft collosal stupity.

[Andylusion]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/21/264571072/as-windows-xp-fades-away-will-its-users-stick-with-microsoft
As Windows XP Fades Away, Will Its Users Stick With Microsoft?


http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/95-percent-us-atms-run-windows-xp



I think I'll be partitioning my drive and coming here via Linux from now on. . . . My machine is will do a new operating system, but why should I buy one? Thieves.

http://www.economist.com/node/13354332

I'm a bit surprised that the Economist would say such a thing about planned obsolescence. At least this particular writer doesn't seem to understand it.

Operating systems are huge. They have millions of lines of code. And one of the big issues with bugs and vulnerabilities, is that with every new patch and upgrade, one fix, can cause other bugs in those millions of lines of code.

I once was an aspiring programmer, and had to debug software, and it really is insane. If a large bit of software was a patient at a doctors office, fixing software bugs would be like putting a bandaid on a toe that has a cut, and then suddenly the patients ear stopped hearing.

And as newer software is made for the newer operating systems (Windows 7 or Window 8), that software tends to have more problems operating on the older system, resulting in people complaining about more bugs.

At some point.... the company is spending more money trying to duct tape and bungie cord an old obsolete system that they are not making money on, and they simply have to let that old system go. It's costing the company more resources to maintain, than it is worth it to maintain.

I'm not convinced that 13 years of life is all that bad. It certainly has outlasted most automobiles, that cost several times as much to purchase.

Certainly you don't see Ford or Toyota building the exact same car for 13 years straight. At some point you have to cut ties, and move on to better designs and technology. You can't just sit there still supporting XP for another 20 years.

Wouldn't we even WANT Microsoft to invest more of their resources into something newer and better?

I will say that Microsoft does in fact do things unnecessarily to push people onto the new operating systems. Again, it's partially because they want to sell more copies of the new stuff.... obviously.... but it's also because people calling in with problems, and complaining about issues with XP, is a cost to the company. If everyone moved on from XP, then they wouldn't have so many phone calls about XP (obviously), and that would save them money.

However... the fact is, there is no real alternative. Yes you have some Linux geeks out there, and that's fine. I'm for that actually. I would love it if Linux would take over the world..... but the fact is, it's not going to happen. At least not in the foreseeable future. I've installed Linux myself, and it's nifty... it's neat.... but it's not userfriendly, not by a long shot, and if someone doesn't have a geek core to them, Linux would be extremely frustrating and tiresome. Some of the most simple functions, like simply installing a basic free-ware game, is frustrating and bothersome. That's not an alternative to Windows. I wish, but it's not.

Well there you go...sorry, this will be rude but that is a whole lot of horseshit.
Linux is not user friendly?? And Windows 8 is??
That is hilarious.
Linux is a perfect system for simple users, I have set up a mint desktop for a lot of folks and they never want to go back to Windows. The "difficulty" in Linux, and it really is not that difficult anymore, is setting up the restricted codecs and proprietary drivers...which...wait for it...takes about 3 minutes. And your done.
You can always tell when a person badmouths Linux that has no idea what they are talking about. And you are one of them.
Linux used to be hard. It use to take hours and hours of hacking to get a system correctly setup. Now - about 3 or 4 minutes.

I'm sorry you are brainless idiot. I told you... I have linux dumbass. It's not that easy. You are stupid and wrong. You can always tell when you are talking to a linux cult fool, and you are most certainly one of them.

If you have your head shoved so far up your own linux arrogance, that you think it is just as easy, then you are too stupid to be on this forum. Get lost.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm a bit surprised that the Economist would say such a thing about planned obsolescence. At least this particular writer doesn't seem to understand it.

Operating systems are huge. They have millions of lines of code. And one of the big issues with bugs and vulnerabilities, is that with every new patch and upgrade, one fix, can cause other bugs in those millions of lines of code.

I once was an aspiring programmer, and had to debug software, and it really is insane. If a large bit of software was a patient at a doctors office, fixing software bugs would be like putting a bandaid on a toe that has a cut, and then suddenly the patients ear stopped hearing.

And as newer software is made for the newer operating systems (Windows 7 or Window 8), that software tends to have more problems operating on the older system, resulting in people complaining about more bugs.

At some point.... the company is spending more money trying to duct tape and bungie cord an old obsolete system that they are not making money on, and they simply have to let that old system go. It's costing the company more resources to maintain, than it is worth it to maintain.

I'm not convinced that 13 years of life is all that bad. It certainly has outlasted most automobiles, that cost several times as much to purchase.

Certainly you don't see Ford or Toyota building the exact same car for 13 years straight. At some point you have to cut ties, and move on to better designs and technology. You can't just sit there still supporting XP for another 20 years.

Wouldn't we even WANT Microsoft to invest more of their resources into something newer and better?

I will say that Microsoft does in fact do things unnecessarily to push people onto the new operating systems. Again, it's partially because they want to sell more copies of the new stuff.... obviously.... but it's also because people calling in with problems, and complaining about issues with XP, is a cost to the company. If everyone moved on from XP, then they wouldn't have so many phone calls about XP (obviously), and that would save them money.

However... the fact is, there is no real alternative. Yes you have some Linux geeks out there, and that's fine. I'm for that actually. I would love it if Linux would take over the world..... but the fact is, it's not going to happen. At least not in the foreseeable future. I've installed Linux myself, and it's nifty... it's neat.... but it's not userfriendly, not by a long shot, and if someone doesn't have a geek core to them, Linux would be extremely frustrating and tiresome. Some of the most simple functions, like simply installing a basic free-ware game, is frustrating and bothersome. That's not an alternative to Windows. I wish, but it's not.

Well there you go...sorry, this will be rude but that is a whole lot of horseshit.
Linux is not user friendly?? And Windows 8 is??
That is hilarious.
Linux is a perfect system for simple users, I have set up a mint desktop for a lot of folks and they never want to go back to Windows. The "difficulty" in Linux, and it really is not that difficult anymore, is setting up the restricted codecs and proprietary drivers...which...wait for it...takes about 3 minutes. And your done.
You can always tell when a person badmouths Linux that has no idea what they are talking about. And you are one of them.
Linux used to be hard. It use to take hours and hours of hacking to get a system correctly setup. Now - about 3 or 4 minutes.

I'm sorry you are brainless idiot. I told you... I have linux dumbass. It's not that easy. You are stupid and wrong. You can always tell when you are talking to a linux cult fool, and you are most certainly one of them.

If you have your head shoved so far up your own linux arrogance, that you think it is just as easy, then you are too stupid to be on this forum. Get lost.

You say it is hard to setup Linux, I say it is easy...and you say I am stupid?
And the fact you resort to name calling, specifically "linux cult fool" - goes to you are a Microsoft fanboy. You guys are easy to see. "Oh...Linux is sooo hard...and...and..."
Anyone who has any experience in today's popular distros knows that it is anything but hard. In fact, I would say it is harder to install Windows than Linux...and takes 8 times as long to boot. If people had to install Windows from scratch, they would be saying the same thing. A Pre-configured linux system is no different than a PC on Windows.

 

[namvet]

got an ATM card???

Banks everywhere are in a race against time to upgrade their ATMs before they become hot targets for hackers.

link

 

[Iceweasel]

got an ATM card???

Banks everywhere are in a race against time to upgrade their ATMs before they become hot targets for hackers.

link

They've been using XP? Now I'm ascared to use the ATM. Linux was designed as a multiple user secure platform, plus it's free. I can't believe the cheap bastards were paying Microsoft.

 

[waltky]

possum workin' on installin' Linux on Granny's `puter...

Windows XP fans left on their own to fend off hackers
Mon, Apr 07, 2014 - People clinging to Microsoft’s aging Windows XP operating system will be left to fend off cyber criminals by themselves tomorrow.

Tomorrow, the US software colossus will stop patching newly found security holes in Windows XP code that hackers could exploit to slip into computers. Despite Microsoft’s long-heralded plan to stop “supporting” the nearly 13-year-old operating system, it still powers from 20 to 30 percent of Windows machines around the world, according to industry estimates. “I am sure you have everything from police departments to banks to legal offices to restaurants,” Trustwave director Christopher Pogue said. “Think of a business and they probably run XP; I would say everyone is in equal danger.”

US-based Trustwave specializes in helping businesses fight cyber crime. Microsoft support entails regular security updates, but when it stops issuing patches to defend against freshly revealed hacker tactics aimed at XP, those using the operating system will need to enlist their own software wizards or live with mounting threats. Hackers might already know of new ways to break into XP-powered computers, but could be waiting until after tomorrow to attack because Microsoft will no longer step in to thwart them, security experts said. “You are talking literally millions of computers systems that will cease to receive regular security updates,” Pogue said. “That is obviously causing a panic because of new vulnerabilities that will be introduced.”

Microsoft has released several generations of Windows since XP made its debut in 2001. The most recent version is Windows 8, tailored for a world enamored of touch-screen computers and services hosted in the Internet “cloud.” Given the rapid evolution of computer hardware and the short lifespans of devices, newer computers bought by consumers are likely running newer versions of Windows. Of concern, though, are small businesses that stuck with XP because they have grown accustomed to it and it gets the job done. Sectors thought to be more prone to holding on to XP include those with relatively unsophisticated computing needs along with emerging markets or schools where money is tight.

Particular worry is being expressed ATMs, many of which are reported to rely on Windows XP. ATMs could become vulnerable to hacking, particularly independent machines in small shops or bars that are not owned by banks which are more likely to invest in software security, according to Gartner analyst Michael Silver. “In a lot of cases, it is that Windows XP is good enough and people didn’t see the business value to spending money to upgrade,” Silver said of businesses hanging on to XP as new versions of Windows came and went. “It is a risky attitude, given what issues they could have,” Silver said.

Windows XP fans left on their own to fend off hackers - Taipei Times

 

[bianco]

Now I have to learn how to use Windows 8...baaah!
My friend says it's a nightmare.

 

[Politico]

No you don't. They are releasing a new update that will allow you to bring back the classic windows all us sane people use.

 

[Chuckt]

Now I have to learn how to use Windows 8...baaah!
My friend says it's a nightmare.

Some of us can walk you through it. It is only a nightmare because it is different. Once you learn it, it is easy. You can even buy or get a free start menu like Windows 8 for the times you are lost.

You actually don't have to upgrade if XP is working well enough for you.

 

[Darkwind]

Now I have to learn how to use Windows 8...baaah!
My friend says it's a nightmare.

Some of us can walk you through it. It is only a nightmare because it is different. Once you learn it, it is easy. You can even buy or get a free start menu like Windows 8 for the times you are lost.

You actually don't have to upgrade if XP is working well enough for you.

I've found that Win8 is a breeze to use. Whoever said that they can't find anything in Win8 must not know how to type, or spell.

All you have to do is type the first two or three letters of the program and bam, its right there. You don't have to click run, you don't have search for an icon. Simply start typing. Now, if you are on the desktop and have used windows 7, then you'll know exactly were everything is. The only change is that there is no start button to launch a menu list. Easy to get around because you don't need the list. One keystroke on the windows key brings up the main tile screen and you are back to just typing the programs name. Same for the control panel, printer setup, any program that can be launched. The tiles are nothing but a favorites list of programs. You type the name, right click the program and pin it to the start menu. Viola, a new tile. Click and drag to put it where you want it.

Click the down arrow on the main screen and an icon list of every installed program is shown. The Metro platform is exactly like the tablet and phone. If you can't operate your phone, you shouldn't be on a computer and you should just sit quietly until its your time to die.

Windows is designed to be easy and work right out of the fucking box. No other operating system does that and is as user friendly as Windows.

 

[Iceweasel]

Windows is designed to be easy and work right out of the fucking box. No other operating system does that and is as user friendly as Windows.

Ubuntu has Unity by default, which can be changed to numerous shells, or Gnome 3 shell, which is similar (easier to me). You can click the icon or type a few letters to find it. OSX is super easy. Are you familiar with other modern operating systems?

 

[Chuckt]

You can all download Linux Mint to a thumb drive and try it without changing your operating system. You can try it for a while without changing your computer.

Why Linux Mint is a worthwhile Windows XP replacement | ZDNet

Second, Mint is free and even the latest version, Mint 16 Petra, can work on almost any XP system you already have in house. All Linux Mint needs to run is an x86 processor; 512 MBs of RAM (albeit you'll be happier with 1GB); 5 GBs of disk space; a graphics card that can handle 800×600 resolution; and a CD/DVD drive or USB port. That's it.

Next, you don't have to commit to Mint. You can try it before installing it by using a live USB thumb-drive.

To do this, you just need to download Mint and install it on an USB drive with at least 8GBs of room. With that drive, you can boot your XP box to Mint and give it a try without making any permanent changes to your PC.

See the above link for more information.

 

[Andylusion]

Windows is designed to be easy and work right out of the fucking box. No other operating system does that and is as user friendly as Windows.

Ubuntu has Unity by default, which can be changed to numerous shells, or Gnome 3 shell, which is similar (easier to me). You can click the icon or type a few letters to find it. OSX is super easy. Are you familiar with other modern operating systems?

I tried Ubuntu a while back, about a year ago, and installing stuff on it was a nightmare.

It seems to me... and I could be wrong... that when people say "Linux (or whatever version) is just as simple to use", they seem to be implying that people only want to use e-mail, and a web browser.

Which yeah, if you only use default programs, then Ubuntu and just about any Linux system is simple and easy to use. Why not have a Chrome book then? For $100, a fully internet functional system.

But the moment you step outside the Linux box of pre-installed programs, life gets difficult fast.

Again, I have Puppy Linux Legacy OS 2, installed on my Pent 3 Laptop. I love it! I really do. It runs very fast, does everything I want, runs a bunch of vintage games, plays movies and youtube, and netflix and so on.... great!

But I am under no illusion that it's 'user-friendly'. Please. Just connecting the Wifi would drive nearly anyone without a degree in Nerdology nuts.

I do hope that at some point, a single unified Linux platform will take a dominating position, and gain enough programming support to become user-friendly enough to unseat Windows.

What a lot of open source Linux advocates fail to grasp, is it is exactly that open source aspect, that is hindering Linux.

If you were to have all of those millions of programmers around the world, focusing their talents on a single unified Linux distribution, you could easily, within a years time, have a version of Linux, that completely ended the dominance of Windows.

List of Linux distributions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But instead there are thousands of distributions. Each one, with their own little group of supporting programmers. With such massively diffused effort, it's no wonder that a company focusing on a single package, has easily held off free alternatives.

Even Ubuntu itself, has dozens on dozens of distributions. If all those programmers had focused their ability and talents on one single Ubuntu operating system package, it would easily be replacing Windows by now. Instead, we have dozens dozens of partially user friendly, 'almost there' options.

I hate Windows. But the fact is, it is the best of bad options.

Mac OS X was a great hope for me. I had hoped that Mac OS having a basis in FreeBSD, would cause a boost in Linux programming. I have not been able to see that this has happened. Apple successfully gained enough traction with it's proprietary APIs, that most still program exclusively for Mac OS X.

Even though Linux programs can generally be recompiled with little effort to run on Macs, the reverse is not true. But few bother to use Linux programs on a Mac, preferring native Mac programs.

I think Apple simply split the branch too far from the tree, to get the inter-community cross programming support I had hoped to see. Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Right now, Apple has nothing really, outside of it's unique user interface and software.

They could not have let their metaphoric software Apple fall close to the open source tree. It would have been the death of them.

Nevertheless, Linux will always have a bright future of some sort. But whether that bright future includes mainstream home user computers..... hard to say.

 

[waltky]

Chuckt wrote: You actually don't have to upgrade if XP is working well enough for you.

Will it guard against Heartbleed...

... or any other future viruses?

 

[Politico]

No. None of them can if you don't watch where you go.

 

[Iceweasel]

Windows is designed to be easy and work right out of the fucking box. No other operating system does that and is as user friendly as Windows.

Ubuntu has Unity by default, which can be changed to numerous shells, or Gnome 3 shell, which is similar (easier to me). You can click the icon or type a few letters to find it. OSX is super easy. Are you familiar with other modern operating systems?

I tried Ubuntu a while back, about a year ago, and installing stuff on it was a nightmare.

I've installed about 15 different distros and installing software was always done with one mouse click. If you want something not in the supported repository it is more complicated. I've done it but had to look online for instructions and just cut and pasted them into the terminal.

It seems to me... and I could be wrong... that when people say "Linux (or whatever version) is just as simple to use", they seem to be implying that people only want to use e-mail, and a web browser.

Which yeah, if you only use default programs, then Ubuntu and just about any Linux system is simple and easy to use. Why not have a Chrome book then? For $100, a fully internet functional system.

I don't follow you at all. You can install Ubuntu but can't click on one of the 65,000 packages and don't see anything but browsers and email programs? WTF? I do photo editing, Darktable is very good, on par with Lightroom or whatever the Adobe one is. I use Gimp, just about on par with Photoshop unless you want to do some high end prepress. I have a full suite of Libre Office, on par with Microsoft Office, I make my own invoices and estimates. I scan documents and edit them if necessary. Import and store photos and video. Watch HD movies. I use MyPaint for digital paint with a Wacom tablet, for which there is no native equivalent in the Mac/PC world, although there are older versions available. The open source stuff comes out for Linux first and runs best in that environment.

Most of that came pre-installed with my distro, which is typical and installation for anything I've added only took about 3 minutes with nothing but a mouse click.

I do have XP and had to run it to install Garmin software. I had forgotten the length of time involved and rebooting. It was like going back in time a few decades.

But the moment you step outside the Linux box of pre-installed programs, life gets difficult fast.

Again, I have Puppy Linux Legacy OS 2, installed on my Pent 3 Laptop. I love it! I really do. It runs very fast, does everything I want, runs a bunch of vintage games, plays movies and youtube, and netflix and so on.... great!

But I am under no illusion that it's 'user-friendly'. Please. Just connecting the Wifi would drive nearly anyone without a degree in Nerdology nuts.

I don't have wifi on this machine but the network setup automatically on install. You can search for instructions but your hardware may not be compatible, even so it might be doable.

I do hope that at some point, a single unified Linux platform will take a dominating position, and gain enough programming support to become user-friendly enough to unseat Windows.

What a lot of open source Linux advocates fail to grasp, is it is exactly that open source aspect, that is hindering Linux.

If you were to have all of those millions of programmers around the world, focusing their talents on a single unified Linux distribution, you could easily, within a years time, have a version of Linux, that completely ended the dominance of Windows.

List of Linux distributions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But instead there are thousands of distributions. Each one, with their own little group of supporting programmers. With such massively diffused effort, it's no wonder that a company focusing on a single package, has easily held off free alternatives.

Even Ubuntu itself, has dozens on dozens of distributions. If all those programmers had focused their ability and talents on one single Ubuntu operating system package, it would easily be replacing Windows by now. Instead, we have dozens dozens of partially user friendly, 'almost there' options.

I hate Windows. But the fact is, it is the best of bad options.

Mac OS X was a great hope for me. I had hoped that Mac OS having a basis in FreeBSD, would cause a boost in Linux programming. I have not been able to see that this has happened. Apple successfully gained enough traction with it's proprietary APIs, that most still program exclusively for Mac OS X.

Even though Linux programs can generally be recompiled with little effort to run on Macs, the reverse is not true. But few bother to use Linux programs on a Mac, preferring native Mac programs.

I think Apple simply split the branch too far from the tree, to get the inter-community cross programming support I had hoped to see. Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Right now, Apple has nothing really, outside of it's unique user interface and software.

They could not have let their metaphoric software Apple fall close to the open source tree. It would have been the death of them.

Nevertheless, Linux will always have a bright future of some sort. But whether that bright future includes mainstream home user computers..... hard to say.

I've never been one to follow the mainstream but there are commercial distros, Red Hat is the big one I believe. It's more for business though since you can get a freeby for most things. All I know is that I'm saving a fortune in software and upgrade costs, have no anti-virus software or maintenance fees.

Yes, they could use some more commercially produced applications, which would be easier and cheaper to produce and I've seen some in-roads but it will take more users to make it worth while. I agree with that but don't share your install experience. Your computer must not be Linux friendly.

 

[Missourian]

Switch to windows 8.1 when I got a new laptop.

I was a diehard XPer, resisting any upgrade...but...

Windows 8 ain't so bad, once you learn it's idiosyncrasies.

Six months in and I don't miss XP at all.

 

[Andylusion]

I've installed about 15 different distros and installing software was always done with one mouse click. If you want something not in the supported repository it is more complicated. I've done it but had to look online for instructions and just cut and pasted them into the terminal.

Do you think the average user is going to know what the different 'distros' are? Are they going to know where to look, or even what those instructions are? I don't think so.

I don't follow you at all. You can install Ubuntu but can't click on one of the 65,000 packages and don't see anything but browsers and email programs? WTF? I do photo editing, Darktable is very good, on par with Lightroom or whatever the Adobe one is. I use Gimp, just about on par with Photoshop unless you want to do some high end prepress. I have a full suite of Libre Office, on par with Microsoft Office, I make my own invoices and estimates. I scan documents and edit them if necessary. Import and store photos and video. Watch HD movies. I use MyPaint for digital paint with a Wacom tablet, for which there is no native equivalent in the Mac/PC world, although there are older versions available. The open source stuff comes out for Linux first and runs best in that environment.

Yes I would imagine that it would come out for Linux first. Well, perhaps things have improved drastically, or perhaps I picked a bad distro of Ubuntu that was difficult to use. Of course that alone would illustrate my point. If I can pick out the one 'not-so-easy' distro, what chance does the average user have?

I do have XP and had to run it to install Garmin software. I had forgotten the length of time involved and rebooting. It was like going back in time a few decades.

Ok, then again I must have picked a bad distro of Ubuntu, because it booted slower than Windows. In fact, much slower. So you figured out which distro is great and awesome. Wonderful. What do you expect from average users?

I don't have wifi on this machine but the network setup automatically on install. You can search for instructions but your hardware may not be compatible, even so it might be doable.

Case and point.

I've never been one to follow the mainstream but there are commercial distros, Red Hat is the big one I believe. It's more for business though since you can get a freeby for most things. All I know is that I'm saving a fortune in software and upgrade costs, have no anti-virus software or maintenance fees.

Yes, they could use some more commercially produced applications, which would be easier and cheaper to produce and I've seen some in-roads but it will take more users to make it worth while. I agree with that but don't share your install experience. Your computer must not be Linux friendly.

I'm all in favor of Red Hat. Great company, good people there. I'm a big fan of their success.

But it is, as you said. They are geared towards corporate application, which of course is their bread and butter.

Also, you are absolutely right! You *ARE* saving tons and tons and tons of money in software upgrade costs, and of course the lack of any real virus threat is worth thousands.

I worked in IT, and I can tell you it is the most terrible feeling being called to a customer site to examine a computer that stopped functioning right, and find that the hard drive was wiped by a virus. And then.... you have to turn around and talk to the customer and explain that everything on their computer is blank and gone.... I'll tell you, that for me was a BAD DAY. Here they are paying you to 'fix it', and all you can say to them is "uh... your screwed".

So yeah, I am totally with you on that one for sure. That's why I never have ANYTHING of real value on my windows machine. Everything mission critical, I do on my Mac. In 20 years of using Apples, I have yet to lose a single important file.

Linux is the same. Very much virus proof.

You don't have to preach the virtues of Linux, or pretty much any alternative to Microsoft, to me. I'm singing in the choir behind you. Totally in favor of a completely take over by better alternatives.

My only beef, it's just not as userfriendly. Until it is so simple, that people don't have to wade through millions of different distros, until they don't have to figure out what "hda1/dev" means, or search the internet for command line instructions for setting up something, or searching hardware compatibility lists to see if their box is "linux friendly".... as much as I would love to see a Linux with a 30% to 50% market share.... it's not going to happen.

I'd love to see it though. I hope it happens in my life time. Who knows.

I will say that your enthusiasm, has convinced me to check out Ubuntu again. I will try it again.

 

[percysunshine]

So when will 'Windows 9' be rolled out?

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you think the average user is going to know what the different 'distros' are? Are they going to know where to look, or even what those instructions are? I don't think so.

If they do any research they will find out Ubuntu and Mint are the top dogs. Ubuntu lost many due to the Unity interface, although it can be changed. Mint is more traditional and seems a bit more polished to me.

Yes I would imagine that it would come out for Linux first. Well, perhaps things have improved drastically, or perhaps I picked a bad distro of Ubuntu that was difficult to use. Of course that alone would illustrate my point. If I can pick out the one 'not-so-easy' distro, what chance does the average user have?

Something was wrong with the download or there was a hardware comparability issue. I've installed numerous Ubuntu and Mint distros plus a few others. They aren't different versions as much as newer versions, unless you go to an alternative XFCE, Debian, KDE, etc. distro. They typically come out every 6 months unless you go for the LTS (long term support) which is every 3 or 5 years, I forget. That can be confusing but there is a lot online that describes them. Hardware and memory is a consideration, some are very basic, some very feature laden.

I'm on a 8+ year old AMD machine and the newer stuff is too much for it.
Also, Ubuntu and Mint and the more popular releases are based on Debian unstable. Meaning not thoroughly tested. I've decided on Debian stable for my main use and some applications are older. But Debian is not for the novice, it isn't as user friendly to set up, no question. Then there's Debian experimental if life is too boring. I use mine in business so stability is paramount. But you can install other versions of whatever, I have two others plus XP.

I'm all in favor of Red Hat. Great company, good people there. I'm a big fan of their success.

But it is, as you said. They are geared towards corporate application, which of course is their bread and butter.

Also, you are absolutely right! You *ARE* saving tons and tons and tons of money in software upgrade costs, and of course the lack of any real virus threat is worth thousands.

I worked in IT, and I can tell you it is the most terrible feeling being called to a customer site to examine a computer that stopped functioning right, and find that the hard drive was wiped by a virus. And then.... you have to turn around and talk to the customer and explain that everything on their computer is blank and gone.... I'll tell you, that for me was a BAD DAY. Here they are paying you to 'fix it', and all you can say to them is "uh... your screwed".

So yeah, I am totally with you on that one for sure. That's why I never have ANYTHING of real value on my windows machine. Everything mission critical, I do on my Mac. In 20 years of using Apples, I have yet to lose a single important file.

Linux is the same. Very much virus proof.

You don't have to preach the virtues of Linux, or pretty much any alternative to Microsoft, to me. I'm singing in the choir behind you. Totally in favor of a completely take over by better alternatives.

My only beef, it's just not as userfriendly. Until it is so simple, that people don't have to wade through millions of different distros, until they don't have to figure out what "hda1/dev" means, or search the internet for command line instructions for setting up something, or searching hardware compatibility lists to see if their box is "linux friendly".... as much as I would love to see a Linux with a 30% to 50% market share.... it's not going to happen.

I'd love to see it though. I hope it happens in my life time. Who knows.

I will say that your enthusiasm, has convinced me to check out Ubuntu again. I will try it again.

I didn't have anti-virus programs on my Macs and had no problems. As mentioned by someone else, you can burn a DVD or stick and test a few versions out with no install. I would try Mint as well, I don't even know what version they are up to. Ubuntu's Unity dashboard is too clunky for me. Although you can log back in with a different desktop environment. I tell people on of the advantages of Linux is it's highly customizable and one of the disadvantages is that it's highly customizable.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you think the average user is going to know what the different 'distros' are? Are they going to know where to look, or even what those instructions are? I don't think so.

If they do any research they will find out Ubuntu and Mint are the top dogs. Ubuntu lost many due to the Unity interface, although it can be changed. Mint is more traditional and seems a bit more polished to me.

Yes I would imagine that it would come out for Linux first. Well, perhaps things have improved drastically, or perhaps I picked a bad distro of Ubuntu that was difficult to use. Of course that alone would illustrate my point. If I can pick out the one 'not-so-easy' distro, what chance does the average user have?

Something was wrong with the download or there was a hardware comparability issue. I've installed numerous Ubuntu and Mint distros plus a few others. They aren't different versions as much as newer versions, unless you go to an alternative XFCE, Debian, KDE, etc. distro. They typically come out every 6 months unless you go for the LTS (long term support) which is every 3 or 5 years, I forget. That can be confusing but there is a lot online that describes them. Hardware and memory is a consideration, some are very basic, some very feature laden.

I'm on a 8+ year old AMD machine and the newer stuff is too much for it.
Also, Ubuntu and Mint and the more popular releases are based on Debian unstable. Meaning not thoroughly tested. I've decided on Debian stable for my main use and some applications are older. But Debian is not for the novice, it isn't as user friendly to set up, no question. Then there's Debian experimental if life is too boring. I use mine in business so stability is paramount. But you can install other versions of whatever, I have two others plus XP.

I'm all in favor of Red Hat. Great company, good people there. I'm a big fan of their success.

But it is, as you said. They are geared towards corporate application, which of course is their bread and butter.

Also, you are absolutely right! You *ARE* saving tons and tons and tons of money in software upgrade costs, and of course the lack of any real virus threat is worth thousands.

I worked in IT, and I can tell you it is the most terrible feeling being called to a customer site to examine a computer that stopped functioning right, and find that the hard drive was wiped by a virus. And then.... you have to turn around and talk to the customer and explain that everything on their computer is blank and gone.... I'll tell you, that for me was a BAD DAY. Here they are paying you to 'fix it', and all you can say to them is "uh... your screwed".

So yeah, I am totally with you on that one for sure. That's why I never have ANYTHING of real value on my windows machine. Everything mission critical, I do on my Mac. In 20 years of using Apples, I have yet to lose a single important file.

Linux is the same. Very much virus proof.

You don't have to preach the virtues of Linux, or pretty much any alternative to Microsoft, to me. I'm singing in the choir behind you. Totally in favor of a completely take over by better alternatives.

My only beef, it's just not as userfriendly. Until it is so simple, that people don't have to wade through millions of different distros, until they don't have to figure out what "hda1/dev" means, or search the internet for command line instructions for setting up something, or searching hardware compatibility lists to see if their box is "linux friendly".... as much as I would love to see a Linux with a 30% to 50% market share.... it's not going to happen.

I'd love to see it though. I hope it happens in my life time. Who knows.

I will say that your enthusiasm, has convinced me to check out Ubuntu again. I will try it again.

I didn't have anti-virus programs on my Macs and had no problems. As mentioned by someone else, you can burn a DVD or stick and test a few versions out with no install. I would try Mint as well, I don't even know what version they are up to. Ubuntu's Unity dashboard is too clunky for me. Although you can log back in with a different desktop environment. I tell people on of the advantages of Linux is it's highly customizable and one of the disadvantages is that it's highly customizable.

Excellent. Question: What work applications are you using it for? Or more to the point, what is it that you do? What job is this being used for?