Linux versus Win7

[BubbaBlues]

If you like it that's all that matters.

[c++101]

I run mint in a virtual machine, and it does what I want it to do. I prefer using Mint over my crummy Vista install. I was thinking bout upgrading to Win7, but decided I could wait another year till I get a new laptop. Both OSs have things that they do better than the other. Use whatever OS you need to get your stuff done.

[tdockery97]

Windows 7 is actually a very good OS; the trouble is that it is still Windows, which I had used since 3.1 and I am bored with it. Linux is new and interesting, and pretty much everything is changeable and customizable. So maybe it will take me 20 years more to get bored with Mint.

[BubbaBlues]

Windows just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mint on the other hand....

[JonM33]

Windows 7 is actually a very good OS; the trouble is that it is still Windows, which I had used since 3.1 and I am bored with it. Linux is new and interesting...

Linux has been around for 19 years. How is it new?

[vincent]

I think what tdockery97 meant was that the pace of changes and development within the FOSS world is way more faster than in Windows, or something to that effect.

[linuxviolin]

I think what tdockery97 meant was that the pace of changes and development within the FOSS world is way more faster than in Windows, or something to that effect.

Yes, although not for all apps, but this is also one of its biggest defaults...

[brett9897]

See I can never make the switch to Linux because there is always something that doesn't work and has no current solution. I thought I found the answer with Mint. Installed it in VBox to test it out, loved it. It finally made me give up on Fedora after 3 years of being a Fedora user. I did a dual boot with Win7 and Mint and just like Fedora suspend never actually suspends and never wakes back up. My computer uses too much power to leave on all the time, energy bills would kill me. So I am going to have to go back to using Win7 as my main operating system. I love programming in Linux but the additional work to reboot to program and then reboot when done is too much. So it looks like I will continue to only boot into Linux when I need to do a special pThreads application.

[DrHu]

I use linux 100% on my computers, no dual booting. Not because I am gainst windows but just feel more comfortable with linux. ... In that case, for people who expect everything to work always out of the box, windows is better option and microsft did good to come up with windows 7.

I use linux 100% on my computers, no dual booting..
I do the same. I actually consider anyone who dual-boots (multiboots) not to be a Linux user, even if I understand the need: the need usually being playing windows games

• When that is the reason, I would prefer a separate windows game computer: OH, wait a minute, isn't that what their XBox is for !..

--if I ever need a windows OS running, I just use a VM (virtualbox, Sun version)

• And I only ever need a windows OS for a windows application, not games, since I don't play that many games, even though I have quite the collection of dos/windows games, and even some of the recent titles of a few years old.

..for people who expect everything to work always out of the box, windows is better option
That was never entirely true, although with the last in a long line of windows' OS releases, they might have finally corralled the OEM driver developers enough that they can almost ensure their OS will work with most newer devices
--they still don't support all the devices Linux can, when that is important to you, you have the device that windows doesn't support, maybe too old or too specialized etc ..

Nevertheless, I don't object to Microsoft's right to exist
--or pander their product lines

[randomizer]

I do the same. I actually consider anyone who dual-boots (multiboots) not to be a Linux user, even if I understand the need: the need usually being playing windows games

By the same logic, the person is also not a Windows user because they multiboot. So what are they then?

[tdockery97]

A Winux user?

[randomizer]

I think Wintux sounds better. The 't' makes all the difference

[tdockery97]

I think Wintux sounds better. The 't' makes all the difference

You're right (and clever too)

[BubbaBlues]

--if I ever need a windows OS running, I just use a VM (virtualbox, Sun version)

And I only ever need a windows OS for a windows application, not games, since I don't play that many games, even though I have quite the collection of dos/windows games, and even some of the recent titles of a few years old.

If I could use my cd/dvd drives with virtualbox I wouldn't need to dual boot either. But once in a great while, I need to use a windows dvd program. I wish I didn't, but
Linux only has one good dvd program (k9copy) and sometimes it chokes.

[jesica]

I agree with DrHU

I also just use Linux

if I must use windows,it is at work since the university had programs written in windows that I have tried to get working on linux, but our it do not want to bite

if you want to play games.....get a ps

and yes, windows does not always work out of the box, you must install all your hardware you use software,

Mint already have all the software installed

[colyn]

At two bills for a Windows 7 Home Premium DVD I'll stick with Linux.

If Microsoft would charge a reasonable price....maybe...

[randomizer]

The claim that Microsoft charges unreasonable prices for Windows (ignoring "ultimate" editions) is ridiculous. You use a copy of Windows for thousands of hours during its life cycle, and all for $150-200. You buy a game at $50-70 brand new and play it for 5-15 hours. Which is really an exorbitant price?

[JonM33]

if you want to play games.....get a ps

Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are several generations behind in 3D graphics capability to what the PC has. First-person shooters are a joke on consoles.

At two bills for a Windows 7 Home Premium DVD I'll stick with Linux.

If Microsoft would charge a reasonable price....maybe...

1 bill actually: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116754

$99 is nothing for an entire operating system. Console games are $59 each and can't even do remotely close to what a Windows OS can.

[Fred]

JonM33 wrote:

$99 is nothing for an entire operating system.

I would certainly encourage all those Windows users that seem to think Windows works so good out-of-the-box to purchase a copy of the linked Windows OS. Then install it on their hardware.

I would be interested in knowing how much fun you had tracking down and installing drivers and firmware. And then configuring it all. That's just to get a boot-able, functioning system. That's before you even think about any productivity software, security software, or massive and risky system updates that will need to take place.

What comes on a piece of hardware that has Windows pre-installed and what you will be buying in that box are similar in name only.

Fred

[graeme]

Jon, Console games are that expensive to subsidise the price of the console. They are also very expensive to make and sell in much smaller volumes than an OS. You might as well complain that a sports car is more expensive than a van but can carry less luggage.

Fred, its worth adding that people who want no-hassle installs can buy PCs with Linux pre-installed.