Maximum PC

Hey, I am getting kind of fed up with windows and am about to load a native Ubuntu installation. In my opinion, mac is like linux in the fact that it has worse hardware support than windows (but not as bad as linux) and is more resistant to viruses (because of fewer native viruses) and crashes (because of decreased bloatware). If anyone uses mac or linux instead of windows, I would like to know why. Some solid data backing up any claims would be nice too.

Thanks and happy OSing!


[EDIT]
Sorry, I guess I should have made that a little clearer. The main reason I don't recommend linux around here is the problem of dial-up modem support (i live in the middle of no-where). I can switch now that I use Ethernet, but before, I didn't want to bust the twenty bucks on a modem driver that might require some tweaking to work. And I was referring to windows XP, Vista is new, and the drivers are being worked out, as with linux and printer support. If you have a question about mac hardware support, then that is definitely something I have not done any research on. I made my assumptions from a mac-friend who has trouble with a digital camera, on the supposed media computer. Anyways, the point of this is to gain information, so state your thoughts on what you have used, what you like and what you dislike.

One thing I will say is that I can run windows XP on older computers no problem but an XUbuntu alternate installer freezes without finishing. I would say that support for older hardware is definitely better in XP than in Ubuntu, and nonexistent in OSX (why not just buy a new computer?).

I switched to a dual boot from Vista because the driver were terrible on Vista. I've had no driver troubles on Linux, plus the 3d effects are way cooler.

Also, I've had no troubles from picking a 64bit distro (Arch Linux) instead of sticking to 32bit.

well, i have heard a rumer that mac is coming out with an os update that allows you to install it on a pc. I dont think this is true, but it could be possible.


yea, windows can't do the little jiggle when you resize a window.

I am not sure what you are saying by "linux has worse hardware support than windows and mac" because I had to replace hardware when I installed Vista for the wifey. Vista did not like my NIC, nor did it like my printer that has never happened with linux.

If you are running compiz I can achieve better effects with less hardware in linux than in windows. I personally like the free factor and the fact that I can let the kids do whatever on the linux machine and not worry about virii or malware infestations. It is also nice that I only have to reboot about once every 6 months or so as well.

These are just a few of the reasons I like linux over Big Blue.

I dont quite understand what you mean either. I have installed ubuntu on 3 of my laptops and they all work seamlessly.

I have had various version of linux running on *very* old hardware, that is still running. In fact, my server is a 900MHz Athlon with a TNT2 video card, it works months on end doing all kinds of work and never a hiccup. So, I think you need to re-look the whole "older hardware" statement.

1. Resource management - Windows (all versions) are resource hogs. Most notoriously, Vista requires some pretty steep hardware requirements ***JUST TO RUN THE OS*** (was that loud enough for you?). But, XP has terrible memory management as well. Anyone that folds can verify this simple fact.

2. Freedom - Both as free of cost/maintenance and freedom to change/tweak. MS has a horrible setup that does more to restrict the user with every iteration. I like to be in ***control*** of my system, not the other way around.

3. Networking - Linux/UNIX's networking stack is superior, period. Plus, just as a pet peeve, Windows doesn't even offer SSH as an option.

4. Software - I can get all of the software (management) I need for everything I need to do (except newer games), from one source. And, its usually free.

5. I have a lot better security in Linux. Mostly because I setup my router/server/firewall and wireless router/AP using linux, but also the host systems are better secured to intrusion or compromise.

But, I've only been running linux for 11 years...what do I know?

The only problem I've had with linux in the last 5 years has been wireless cards. Ndiswrappers have always solved the problem, but I don't like having to wire my PC to download the software to enable my wireless so I can continue my install.

Having said that, I could put all th software I need on a disc along with the OS install ... but I'm lazy. Lazy until I have to scrounge for 50 ft. of CAT5 so I don't have to actually pick up and move my beast. So .. not lazy so much as inefficient.

Agrees. This is the only downside I have seen with Linux. That a tad bit worse battery life on Laptops.

Thanks for the input so far. I intend to install as soon as I feel I have an hour or so to kill setting up drivers and such. It may take shorter, you never know...

I think they're referring to winmodem support...which IMO, sucks less, but still sucks nonetheless.

...but hey, they're designed for windows aren't they

Actually, I'd report the opposite. I've had longer battery life since switching my laptop to Linux.

I also got lucky by having an Intel 4965 chip on the lappy (it's supported by native drivers).

My only problem is that two multimedia keys for brightening and dimming the screen don't work, however the functionality is still provided by a slider applet so there's no real loss.

Not a chance in hell. Apple's entire business model is based on them controlling the hardware.

by chance do you have a link for that rumor?

Ok, my optimistic estimate of an hour was wrong I don't even know how long I've spent hours invested in getting it running. Its all fun though, I enjoy it.
The first problem was that my drive I was going to use wasn't getting recognized by the liveCD, but a few reboots solved that. Then, after installed, I was horrified to find that my monitor refused to display above 600x800. Editing xorg.conf didn't work, and i found a similar problem on the error forums. The solution, upgrade to Hardy Heron Alpha 3, ok no problem. an hour later, screen works, YESS. installed emerald and compiz, edited some themes. I still am trying to get grub to boot to my second hard drive (windows), oh and my hard drive seems to have disapeared, but no worries, its all fixable.

So I revise my original statement, the hardware support isn't worse in linux, it is only a lot harder to get working

Great OS though, I love the desktop effects

Once its tweaked and prefect. Its just an unbeatable OS. Its like a high performance car. Needs some tweaking so it runs perfect......

You could try PClinuxOS it's simple and just works. Usually you can have that up and running with upgrades in under an hour.

Myself I like Suse but that takes a lot longer to set that up.
But that is somewhat because of my hardware. It,s a PITA getting my 32" LCD configured.

I am a fellow linux user like you...
Micro$atan releases these new monstrosities on us every few years...and force us to upgrade our hardware and or computers. But do we NEED to upgrade that much?
Heck I just got Vista to install on a older Hewlett Packard Pavilion 7340 (Pentium III we're talking here) with 512 mb of memory ...and a 256 mb Nvidia card.
it runs a teensy bit slow...expected from a computer with a 1 gig proc and 66(?) mhz FSB I suppose.

To differ with what someone else said about hardware support...newer linux distros that are being released have better and better hardware support..ESPECIALLY for older computers.
Mepis has a variant called AntiX (pronounced almost like 'antiques') which runs comfortably on a old computer I have here at the house with a 233 mhz proc and 256 megabytes of memory and a 32 mb video card.

Glenn Condrey

The only issue I find with most linux machines is that if you want to change something, and you don't know how to code, you're pretty lost.

Also, Flash STILL won't run with me, and GNASH doesn't quite make the cut either.

to whomever said they like SuSe better: Actually, I found Suse a much faster install than I did Ubuntu.

The one issue with Open source, is that there isn't much competition for the better features in programs so much as "make it look pretty, and can it run a server?"

Linux is great, but those who aren't coders will be left in the waiting list if they need features and things added. Still MUCH better than Windows OR Mac.

depending on which version of linux you use...installing flash isn't really all that hard.
If you use Mint for example...based on Ubuntu...its already installed when you install Mint...
In Ubuntu...you can install Automatix... a script that downloads and installs many useful utilities...such as java...W32codecs for viewing movies...in older versions of Automatix it also installs nvidia drivers for you...and yes it also installs flash for firefox.
If you use Ubuntu...give Automatix a try....or look for a distro that already has it installed.
Glenn

I have a lot of different computers. I only boot up my Macbook when I don't feel like being productive. I end up spending way more time fighting the piss poor interface than doing anything else.

I use linux when I feel like tinkering. I haven't met a flavor of Linux I didn't like, but if I don't feel like screwing around with the eventual issue then I get pretty pissed off. I can't use it for productivity because programs like openoffice make me want to cry.

I still use Windows for most stuff. Only OS's I've used that ever feel complete.