OS advice

[randycw]

Okay I know that this is a touchy issue with some, but I am curious what people think and their rational to support their thoughts.

The general question... Linux or Windows?

The parameters to consider... I have a home office with one computer for the family (I am the primary user).
Me: WordPro, 1-2-3, Freelance, PhotoImpact, MedLine
occasional game, usually WarCraft
Wife: Internet surfing (IE 5.0), email, WordPro
Kids: Reader Rabbit, and Jump Start stuff.

Currently we utilize a dual boot with Linux Mandrake 7.2 and Windows ME. I installed Mandrake because of the discussions in the Linux section and it sounded promising -- also Windows XP reviews have tended to scare me off a bit from Windows.

It appears from my limited use of Linux that the learning curve will be too steep for the rest of my family (and if I was to be totally honest, possibly for me as well, but I am still willing to give it a try IF PERSUADED THAT IT IS INDEED BETTER)

[Chris Wolfe]

As much as I like to bash dnar over his Linux fanatacism, it is the better OS. While MS has been consistently dumbing down windows making it more and more difficult for people with a clue to get their machines to do what they want in an apparent effort to eliminate "power user" from their vocabulary, every release of Linux adds more power to the OS. And Linux stability is second only to maybe pure Dos. With the constant improvements to Win4Lin, I'm sure it won't be long before dual boot is a thing of the past and more Linux users consider windows to be a Linux application rather than an OS. With that said, dnar, I'm still not going to install Linux on my microwave, Mr. Coffee, digital watch, MP3 player or VCR.:D

[wbierman]

I'm a windows nut. However, Win 95, 98, 98SE, ME are pure crap! Period! All of them are unstable and prone to crashing.

Win NT is great but lacks full Plug-n-play,runs best as Server where it is set up and left alone (much like Linux as a server). Win2K is a great leap from NT 4, reboots reduced and better plug-n-play. Great start with Active Directory for Network and User management. Fantastic mamagement without scripting. The most reliable so far. All the problems I have ever had with Win2K have been with hardware failing. Nothing with the OS. Win XP even better than Win2K Pro for plug-n-play auto network, printer configuration. Support for USB2 and my favorite... Remote Assistance. This feature alone will propel WinXP in the Corporate world where the Help Desk folks can't wait to remotely connect to a users desktop and fix or show a problem or solution. This will be a major factor in all ROI studies. This will save companies real money!

I have not seen the Server version on XP yet so I can't comment on those products.

The Linux flavors are more on speed and reliabilty than useability. Steep learning curve as opposed to Windows.

The current Windows business line - NT 4, Win2K and XP are more on usability and easy management than pure speed with a lower learning curve.

Feature for feature thay are all very similar. The major differences are minor.

Pricing: Linux is basically free but you pay for support. Windows is pay up front with low cost to free support.

Security and bugs: They both have bugs and security holes. Each one gets better with time.

[siggy]

LINUX IS BETTER.

Dnar how many demerits wiped away for that?:D

[Bruce]

Originally posted by wbierman
. . . Windows is pay up front with low cost to free support.


No, what they provide for free isn't support.

[MikeTimbers]

I'm not going to get into an argument but given what your requirements are, may I suggest Windows 2000. It will allow each of your family members to have their won desktops, it runs all the software you want and it is very reliable.

Linux is great if you want to really control the computer. I don't get the impression that Randy needs that. So let's leave out the "what's better" and deal with meeting his requirements.

(Can you tell? I'm an Accenture consultant. No... don't hate me. I was assimilated.)

[siggy]

I never argue.......I am always right.......j/k.

I agree that it should be what fits the needs of the user.

[randycw]

Mike et. al. Thanks for the opinions! You're right I don't need alot of control over the system for most of what I do, BUT I am still a tinkerer at heart. So I do find myself drawn to messing with piece parts and so on. Generally seem to break something about once a months -- wife doesn't like that part -- works out well for continuous upgrades though! :D

Anyway, primarily because of comfort for the rest of the family I think I might migrate to Windows 2000. Still kicking around utilizing a dual boot so I can mess with Linux still.

[kirek]

You could allways get another pc... :D







My wife got tired of me tinkering with the pc a long time ago. :) I ended up building myself a new PC and let my wife have the old one. Be careful though, taking this path can soon lead to an obsession for building/tinkering. I now have 4 pc's floating around. Mine, my wife's, my son's and a firewall for the internet connection. My wife and son run windows and I run linux, everyone's happy. My wife now thinks I'm nuts, but at least it keeps me away from her computer. The only time she will let me touch it (the computer :) ) is if she is having problems or for upgrades.













It really is a sickness, really. ;)






Just my 2cents.











Oh yea, Operating systems:





I would have to say Win2000 would be the best of the windows choices, I use it every day at work and it does what I need it to do. But... If you want to go the linux route I found this doing a search real quick.http://www.linuxforkids.com/. (Start 'em early) I have not tried any of the kids games yet but it looked interesting. And your wife would be an easy convert if all she is doing is surfing, email and word processing.

[pelligrini]

I agree with kirek, W2k would be the better way to go. I am biased though, as I am linux ignorant. If the kids are going to start gaming a windows based OS might be an easier route.

Having a PC for you (prob more eventually), then another for everyone else is probably the best. I hated my wife and kids jacking with my machine all the time, I'd always find some sort of new POS software on the thing, especially Real-junk and all sorts of personal message stuff. They've got theirs and I've got mine, everyone's happier. You don't always get questioned on how much that latest upgrade costs either, since they don't know it's there. ;)

[Martyn]

Hi randy, Just offer my 2C here...

I just installed Win2K pro on one of my boxes, soon to be my main workstation and it rocks. MUCH more stable than any of the win9x incarnations, the robustness is immediately obvious. Plug and play is cool, running Q3A is a breeze, as is UT. I also didn't see any noticable slowdown in gameplay. Pretty much all my hardware was configured during install - no probs.

Re Linux, well it's been a while since I tried that OS, Mandrake 6.0 was the latest version and I never really got to grips with it, so may be a little biassed. Definitely powerful, but not easy to use. I guess it depends on what you intend to do with the box. For me, if it's to be a workstation, then it must be stable, relatively easy to use and facilitate good productivity, through a range of top software products. I must also be able to play my favourite games. While, with some work, I don't doubt Linux could offer all/most of the above, why should I make the effort?

For this particular use, if Linux was easier to use and setup, made me more productive, improved the quality of my work, or offered me some tangible benefit over Win2K pro, then I would certainly use it - but it doesn't! For a desktop workstation, Linux is still a lyfestyle choice IMO. For other purposes, the story is different of course.

No doubt one of the Linux diehard's will chime in here and tell me how wrong this all is, but that's my opinion FWIW :)

[phil]

Nope, you are 100% right tril...I use Linux on 2 machines. One is just running Genome, so Linux was the obvious choice. The second is for me to play and learn Linux and all it has to offer as I am sure that it is going to take off big time on the desktop very soon. My main workstation is Win2K Server...I need to use Win2K as my printer doesn't work to it's full ability under Linux and there is no support for my digi cam and various other stuff. I also use Photoshop 6 a lot and although Linux has comparable apps, they still lack the polished feel of Windows software. Linux is very powerful and I am learning loads...for example, how easy is it to monitor the genome client in windows and detect a bad wu..then compress the bad wu and move it to another dir (ready to send to Stefan) and then restart the client? In Linux this is very easy and I am just modifing some scripts from dnar to do just this.

I am not sure it is 100% ready for the desktop just yet...another year maybe?

[viperdog]

another 2C worth...

I have to come down on the side of windows if your playing any games. I just don't know if W2K is the best choice in your situation or if plain old Win98se or WinMe would be better. I personally have WinMe on a machine and it's stable. In 4 months it's crashed one time and that was because I was trying to update a driver and picked the wrong one..opps.

I just helped a guy I know with his W2K setup and it was a mess..he tried to load some old Win3.1 games, and some DOS games, end result...crash...crash..

Am I saying WinMe is better than W2K..no way. I just think that W2K is overkill for a general use machine. If you get a chance to have two computers then by all means run W2K on your business machine.

[wbierman]

To futher what Viperdog was saying, you might want to wait for Windows XP with its new Program Compatability Wizard. I have been trying old Win 95 and Win 98 games that absolutely refused to play on anything other than Win 98. They have worked just fine under XP.

The wizard sets up virtual spaces to run the games under any MS OS complete with custom memory configurations and screen resolutions. Tonight I was playing Lucas Arts, Star Wars Racer. Played better tonight than anytime before running Win 98.

MS started this program development under Win2K but perfected it for Windows XP.

[MikeTimbers]

Win2K has a file on the resource kit CD called APCOMPAT.EXE that mimics other OSes for games. It kinda works bt not for every game.

[Azzuron]

I find it funny everyone hypes linux Win4Lin. Why dont ppl just program utilities specificly for Linux. Cmon now, if a windows application is slow on windows, how will it ever be faster emulated on another OS?

I seriously believe linux is for the HardCore server machines. If you want to use a PC for applications/games and net surfing, linux will work for the most part (Lack of software the current issue with games and applications) but Windows is already their. As others have said the windows NT line is really takin up the 9x Slack. I personaly dont know alot about linux. I have used RedHat before, and it was darn near imposible for me to get anything done. I heard about mandrake but i couldnt get it to install right. it would hang during the install, somewhere around the time it would setting up the final settings for the Xwindows i think it was. I havnt thought about windows xp/used it or anything. i have a beta avalible to me but im just to lazy to work with it.

I also think one of the main reasons anyone uses linux is due to the fact its free. Would you buy an OS for even 50 bucks with such limited 3rd party software development support? Probably not.

Things have probably changed some scince i used it tho :)


--Azzuron

[dnar]

Oh man, things have changed recently! 12 months ago I would have agreed with you 100%. I now use Linux as my primary OS on ALL systems. I run Win4Lin on two systems and it rocks. Windows runs so much faster due to the underlying Ext2 filesystem and real memory management.

I actually prefer using the Linux desktop and applications over all my old Windows favourites. I was a Netscrape man for years, converted to Opera while still using Windows for workstations, now I use Opera for Linux and it rocks!!!

IMHO, the following suite of Linux applications are very usable & reliable:

Opera 5.05 (Now includes Java support)
PAN Newsreader
Sylpheed mail client (Multiple POP3 support)
LiCQ (ICQ for Linux)
gFTP
Downloader for X (GetRight clone)

My typical productivity apps include:

Gnumeric (Excel comaptible spreadsheet)
WordPerfect 8
StarOffice
Adobe Acrobat
Hylafax / Gfax
GIMP Image Manipulation.
VNC
X-CD-Roast
Win4Lin / Windows 95 (eek)

Phil has recently installed VMWare with W2K and I know he is well pleased with the results, maybe he would like to comment here also.

If you need any help or advise re: Linux productivity, please feel free to ask away...

[Jodie]

Originally posted by Azzuron
I find it funny everyone hypes linux Win4Lin. Why dont ppl just program utilities specificly for Linux. Cmon now, if a windows application is slow on windows, how will it ever be faster emulated on another OS?

[CLIP!]

I also think one of the main reasons anyone uses linux is due to the fact its free. Would you buy an OS for even 50 bucks with such limited 3rd party software development support? Probably not.

Things have probably changed some scince i used it tho :)


--Azzuron

Just a couple of comments - most of the packages out there running windows aren't emulators... I use VMWare - it runs windows under linux as a "guest" os. I have a dual processor machine and it actually executes Win2k on one processor and Linux on the other. It just allows access to the win gui in an Xwindow - so I effectively have two full OS' running simultaneously. I don't see any slowdown at all on a dual processor machine. And I get the best of both worlds - App availability under Windows and stability of Linux. When windows crashes it just takes down its window. I double click an icon and I'm back in windows 10 seconds later. Kinda spiffy.

I pay for my commercial Linux installations, not $50 but generally $85. (Enterprise with basic support) The last reason in the world I'd run it is "because it's free" I run it because its stable, I can customize the source of the OS to my application and because it's faaast...

On my Genome farm, I run it because it's customizable at the kernel level and therefore faster than anything that is "heavy".

Hey, welcome aboard! :D You're going to fit right in...;)