markwolfe Veteran Posted February 1, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 1, 2005 Windows isn't always consistent, but they arranged it better then Linux does (by default an application is installed in C:\Program Files for example). 585395589[/snapback] Might I ask where all your .dll files are scattered? Or what registry keys are created?You only think that your Windows app is cleanly installed in C:/Program Files/foo. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easternBrain Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 a few months back i had a hard time guessing how softwares traced themselves back when re-installed after versions of trial expiry..... :blink: :wacko: coz no one knows which keys r being created by a new windows software installation, and which files are being copied :alien: into Dirs other than the programs own respective Dir in Program files. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Might I ask where all your .dll files are scattered? Or what registry keys are created?You only think that your Windows app is cleanly installed in C:/Program Files/foo. ;) 585397055[/snapback] I never said that..... Though Windows does have a default location to install programs, which Linux hasn't. Ofcourse some programs put dll's in other places, but the same goes for Linux. I found the GAIM image files in a totally different folder then the rest of the program for example... which makes no sense to me. Frankly I find the directory structure (or how you want to call it) a total mess in Linux. Windows isn't that great either, but there seems to be a clearer structure then in Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted February 1, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 1, 2005 I never said that..... Though Windows does have a default location to install programs, which Linux hasn't. Ofcourse some programs put dll's in other places, but the same goes for Linux. I found the GAIM image files in a totally different folder then the rest of the program for example... which makes no sense to me. Frankly I find the directory structure (or how you want to call it) a total mess in Linux. Windows isn't that great either, but there seems to be a clearer structure then in Linux. 585397607[/snapback] It is a matter of what you are used to, I think. https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=260796 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 i aint convinced they've got the install and general ease of use on par with windows. used mepis and ubuntu, the latter destroying my boot sequence totally. so...XP it shall remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3xis Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 waa cry me a frickin river. "linux is too hard and not productive..." first off, anyone can do anything they want on linux if they actually take the time to learn about the OS. configuring my digital camera in linux was easier than doing it within xp. just fire up gphoto2 or gtkam and that's it. when using any windows os in any institutions you have to frickin worry about licensing and other garbage. the whole "i dont use linux cause installing drivers is hard!" statement is so pathetic and lame; just use a package manager. jesus, since when did we start living in a society where a computer is considered to be "crap" if it can't run windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted February 2, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 2, 2005 I'll agree that getting a system running can be a challenge. Hardware compatibility issues and getting the right configuration can be difficult. But set a user in front of a set-up XP and a set-up Gnome or KDE PC and the "user experience" will be very usable for both. EDIT: @ h3xis: Not everyone has the time and energy to set up Linux on a PC that is being difficult. On my PC, it just installed and was 100% happy with everything (including hardware that just is no longer supported in XP). Other configs will be different, and I don't blame people who have a full-time job and a wife and four young boys (like I do) from just saying "screw it" and saying that it is too much effort to install on their PC hardware. Plus, it is harder for these people to find Linux expertise from their group of co-workers and friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easternBrain Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 Out here ppl seeking advice to switch to Linux, generally use Suse or Xandros, coz ther is a promoter for these here. When the PC is totally set up and given to them they dont bother us about anything. But these kinda ppl, with limited needs from a PC, (they require a PC only for typing and surfing or listening to songs or watching a movie) are few. Any set up Linux Distro does that with as much ease as XP. Problem arises only when the users wanna do something more than that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanekiwi Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 imo YES. i love the knoppix/gnoppix livecds. i am a windows user but i used mandrake, debian and suse before. but i am about to make the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Raa Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I'm going to build myself a computer in june/july time - will it be too much to ask for help on it, by saying - will this run linux / is BF2 open gl to play on linux? easternbrain is saying its harder if you want more than typing? what are the specific problems then... non detection of hardware? ... Interesting thread... will be sure to make myself more paranoid about thinking of getting linux by reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-n-t Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) im not sure about bf2, but you can get it to work in an emulator, with a minimal loss in speed. some pointers *********** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ****DON'T BUY ATI CARDS***** ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ********* or USB modems Edit: or winmodems thats all you need to know. enjoy. Edited February 2, 2005 by g-n-t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrack Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I really like Linux. It is going in the right direction to becomming a very good desktop environment. Most Linux distros come with everything the average joe needs in a desktop operating system. Photo manipulation, office suit, web browsing, and email. Plus a LOT more. Also awesome development tools for programmers! Great super computing possibilities for scientist and engineers. There is a lot that Linux offers that windows XP is lacking. that being said: i voted for windows xp. Once I get all my apps installed in Windows XP the user interface and awesome hardware support really make it the better desktop operating system for me just to get my job done. Everything just works, without me needing to tinker with it. (I should note, however, that if gVim wasn't available for Windows XP, I'd be on Linux almost exclusivly for work. I love that program.) But Linux is getting awfully close. Now if this were a Server OS poll, my vote would have been different. -nic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr3at0r Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ATI Cards are just fine...new drivers just came out for Xorg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotRoot Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Out here ppl seeking advice to switch to Linux, generally use Suse or Xandros, coz ther is a promoter for these here. When the PC is totally set up and given to them they dont bother us about anything. But these kinda ppl, with limited needs from a PC, (they require a PC only for typing and surfing or listening to songs or watching a movie) are few. Any set up Linux Distro does that with as much ease as XP. Problem arises only when the users wanna do something more than that.... 585400358[/snapback] If they have trouble doing a little more than that, then chances are they'd have problems in XP as well. Doing Advanced type stuff I guess it is harder in linux, just because its 'different', but not really harder to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 waa cry me a frickin river. "linux is too hard and not productive..." first off, anyone can do anything they want on linux if they actually take the time to learn about the OS. configuring my digital camera in linux was easier than doing it within xp. just fire up gphoto2 or gtkam and that's it. when using any windows os in any institutions you have to frickin worry about licensing and other garbage. the whole "i dont use linux cause installing drivers is hard!" statement is so pathetic and lame; just use a package manager. jesus, since when did we start living in a society where a computer is considered to be "crap" if it can't run windows? 585398298[/snapback] Actually it is as easy as plug in your camera and download photos in Windows XP. You don't have to start any application it will by default ask to use the Scanner & camera wizard . Same in OS X, 1st time it will start Image capture but then give choice of iPhoto once it is launched 1st time. Its very easy in both these OSs since a user is not required to know which app to run. I guess in your case, in an attempt to "optimize" xp or under influence of "M$ puts spyware in my system" you might have disabled some necessary services. I can think of WIA right now, there may be more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easternBrain Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 If they have trouble doing a little more than that, then chances are they'd have problems in XP as well. Doing Advanced type stuff I guess it is harder in linux, just because its 'different', but not really harder to accomplish. 585405398[/snapback] what do you mean by advanced type stuff?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 he probably means something like setting user privileges, managing permissions or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slipdisc210 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I think it is getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ufo70 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Linux is years and years behind Windows when it comes to usability. X Widows is the equivilant to Windows 95 unless you extensively customize it. Want to install an instant messenger? ok, well first you have to find who actually makes one. because none of the original manufacturers will make it for linux. so you find something like gaim while searching sourceforge. no rpm? well thats ok, you give it a shoot anyways. you download the file, and untar it. having used linux previously you try to compile make, oh wait.. that isnt going to work in fedora 3. you should have been using yum. of course nobody tells you this untill you find out other people on the net had the same problem. so you go back to the consol and type in whatever somebody else on the net told you to type, barely knowing what its going to do. so you see it starts working... then wait oh no. it stoped and told you, you're missing some lib files. oh no... so you go back on the net and find other people that had this similar problem. you do what they tell you to do, and try it again. ok well it looks like it completed this time.. 20-40mins later and its installed... and it doesn't even have a courtasey to put a damn icon for the program on your desktop. << this is the usability of linux. horrible for home, great for business. keep it like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted February 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 4, 2005 :blink: uf070, when was the last time you tried Linux? Your specific example of gaim (which was the only specific you really ever gave) is included pretty much on every major distro I am aware of. No need to search, download, compile, pull hair or anything. If you are going to complain, please find legitimate points. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniacid Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 The problem with Linux is everyone isn't Computer Savvy, people get frustrated when they don't know how to do things and don't have time to learn, I love linux and I'm currently using it on my laptop full time and I also love apt-get as it makes life so much easier :p But I still think Linux is far from XP usability, Linux you have to manually configure yourself to get it exactly how you want it, were with XP its already setup with what most people want/need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbiotic Hat Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Linux is great. I love the power and small overhead on your system. Useability is also very close. Only problem that plagues Linux is installation packages. There needs to be a standard install package for all distros. Until they can all agree, Linux will never flurish as a desktop OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted February 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 4, 2005 Linux is great. I love the power and small overhead on your system. Useability is also very close. Only problem that plagues Linux is installation packages. There needs to be a standard install package for all distros. Until they can all agree, Linux will never flurish as a desktop OS.585413057[/snapback] I disagree that they all need "one standard package install method". If you have a nice, easy-to-use GUI front end for it, does anyone really care if it is using apt-get, emerge, yum or whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 4, 2005 X Widows is the equivilant to Windows 95 unless you extensively customize it. 585412940[/snapback] You do know that X windows is what draws information to the screen, like the gdi in windows. You must mean window managers, then which one are you talking about, KDE, GNOME, FluxBox, etc. I think the sheer amount of window managers makes the ui alone more customizable than any versions of windows. And markjensen, i think it does matter what package manager they use, who can say their package manager of choice has super-cow powers? (i know i can :ninja: ) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daylene Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Going for windows Xp. Unfortunetly, Linux couldn't get my ethernet modem up, and lacks support for dsl internet connections. I'll try it maybe when internet is a bit more easy to setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts