linux?

[slavik]

my question to the people who obviously know a thing or two about computers that have always (or almost always) used Windows.

Why haven't you tried GNU/Linux?

[Nightlord]

"Tried" it? I have on many occasions... but only as a secondary OS.
I have always, and plan to continue, using Windows for Game compatibility.
While Linux is quite capable of offering everything else that Windows does
(internet surfing, graphics manipulation, document creation, ect), it's just not
able to natively run the games I play.

[ImaNihilist]

I ran Windows for years. I was never a huge fan, but I never disliked it. Plus, hey—you can play games. I'd given linux a try a few times, and ran it on a partition from time to time but it just wasn't quite there yet. RedHat, Fedora, Slackware...but never really got to deep. I did use the Knoppix LiveCD from time to time.

When Apple switched the Mac line to x86 Intel, I jumped on it. Now I can run OS X, Vista and Ubuntu on the same system (and do). It's great. I just wish I had more RAM. This 2GB just isn't cutting it at all.

[slavik]

@Nightlord, and Linux will never be able to run those games, because they are coded using DirectX (Doom3, UT2k4, Quake3 and stuff based on them can be run natively though).

@ImaNihilist, 8GB of RAM is sweet, no need for a swap partition

[MrDigital]

I find it makes you jump through 10 hoops to do something I can do with 1 click in Windows.

Plus I like Microsoft.

[ImaNihilist]

The gaming issue is really one of choice though. I mean, you could have more OpenGL games. Look at Blizzard. Everyone one of their games works on the Mac OS, and they have it all on the same disks. It's not that big a stretch to think that other companies could do the same, and it could be extended to Linux. IMO, it's the Linux community that has it's head too far up its own *** and doesn't want the games, because they aren't OSS.

[ImaNihilist]

I find it makes you jump through 10 hoops to do something I can do with 1 click in Windows.

Plus I like Microsoft.

Clicks? This is Linux. We don't need no stinkin' mouse. Give me a keyboard and a terminal and I'll pwn you and your clicks, noob.

[ua549]

Linux cannot replace Windows. There are no comparable applications that are compatible with the full MS Office Suite. Sure there are a few programs that can do much of what Office does, but they either can't do everything or they only work with older versions. The biggest stumbling blocks are compatible, fully integrated replacements for Visio and Map Point.

For the few systems I don't need Windows, I use FreeBSD. I use it because the license does not require me to put my own mod into the public domain. They can remain proprietary. With Linux any modifications you distribute must also be made public. A big drawback to the OS.

Finally, as with any *nix based system, they are user hostile because they use of thousands of text files for configuration that are scattered throughout the system. They are much worse than all those .ini files Windows used to have. At least Windows had a naming convention that *nix does not.

[MrDigital]

Clicks? This is Linux. We don't need no stinkin' mouse. Give me a keyboard and a terminal and I'll pwn you and your clicks, noob.

Own me in what? Amount of time wasted doing trivial tasks? First person to carpal tunnel?

[proxops-pete]

Well, if you've never seen the power of "vi" editor, you don't know the power of Unix/Linux. But yeah, for day-to-day stuff including gaming, I can't ditch Windows... and I don't like Microsoft!

[ImaNihilist]

Finally, as with any *nix based system, they are user hostile because they use of thousands of text files for configuration that are scattered throughout the system. They are much worse than all those .ini files Windows used to have. At least Windows had a naming convention that *nix does not.

See, that depends. I can see how for larger network situations Windows may be an advantage in that respect, but I actually prefer the thousands of text files. Particularly because it lets you reset an application very easily, and at least in OS X they are appropriately named. It's pretty easy to find all the relevant .plist files. I find it much easier to maintain for other people too, at least at the home desktop level, as opposed to dealing with things like registry corruption.

[ImaNihilist]

Office is Office, and it's not going away any time soon. If I had to say there was one app which people need, above all others, in Office it's Microsoft Excel. It's like the universal business app. All others are on a individual basis, but don't think I've ever seen a workstation anywhere without Excel. If OpenOffice ever wants to even try to stand up, they are going to have to work on Calc, and it needs quite a bit of work to become a true Excel alternative.

[rock]

I've been spending many hours the last couple weeks doing development on Suse 10 inside a virtual machine running on my Windows desktop.

I would love to move to Linux as my primary OS, but there are too many hurdles. We use Outlook calendar to sync meetings, Office 2003/2007 are the standard doc formats for work, we do a lot of .NET development, etc. But we support Linux and various UNIXes too.

I like Linux a lot, it just isn't the best option for company desktops.

[Remington]

I think the biggest reason computer literate people still use windows, is that they don't need to use linux. I do enjoy linux, but I'm not an admin, programmer, webserver or whatever. It's just a hobby, my interest in the realm of electronics is purely personal. It's either that or the games.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think the biggest reason computer literate people still use windows, is that they don't need to use linux. I do enjoy linux, but I'm not an admin, programmer, webserver or whatever. It's just a hobby, my interest in the realm of electronics is purely personal. It's either that or the games.

That about sums it up for me.

Aside from my time with Windows ME, and to some extent Windows 98 (non-SE), I've never really felt "held back" by Windows, and any real need or desire to switch.
I'm no heavy power user, but Windows XP and now Vista have just never backed me up into any problems that I couldn't easily troubleshoot my way out of, or that I usually caused myself, and it was pretty rare that I'd ever have a problem anyway.
I can understand wanting a change if you've come up against major issues with what you do in Windows, but that hasn't ever been the case for me in the past 6-7 years of using Windows in the vista/XP/2000 eras.