Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: TonyFordz on 21 December 2005, 10:09
-
I am very new to Linux, but over the years I have heard good things about it. I am rather sick of MicroSoft Windows, and now wish to build my 2nd PC with a different OS. The only reason I have continued to use Windows, is because I do not know if my software & games will be compatible with another OS other then Windows.
I just bought a new motherboard, and so far it seams to work great. The down side is, it doesn't have drivers to support Linux, and or anything other then Windows OSes. This is a slight downfall.
I know most people are going with AMD now days, and I still to this day prefer P4 & Xeon processors. I am at this time running a P4 1.7GHz Socket 478 CPU, 20GB Quantum Fireball 5400 rpm Master, 300GB Maxtor 7200 rpm ATA133 16mb buffer, 1GB DDR333, P4P800-E Deluxe Motherboard, 17" KDS Monitor, MicroFucker Inferred Keyboard & Wireless Mouse, OEM Non Brand Name DVD Writer, 52x32x52 Liteon CD Writer, ATI 9600 Pro 128mb AGP 8x.... This is my first PC that I have been upgrading over time.
I want a stable OS that is not a resource hog. I am sick of having my PC crash, and being nailed with everything known to man on the net, that was meant to target MicroSoft OSes. I am in great need of suggestions for an OS that is simple to use, but also very powerful. Something that will not be a waste of money, and will be well worth my time and money.
Anyone know of an OS that may be suitable for me? If so please do share you're ideas, and help.
Thank you,
Tony
-
I am very new to Linux, but over the years I have heard good things about it. I am rather sick of MicroSoft Windows, and now wish to build my 2nd PC with a different OS. The only reason I have continued to use Windows, is because I do not know if my software & games will be compatible with another OS other then Windows.
I just bought a new motherboard, and so far it seams to work great. The down side is, it doesn't have drivers to support Linux, and or anything other then Windows OSes. This is a slight downfall.
I know most people are going with AMD now days, and I still to this day prefer P4 & Xeon processors. I am at this time running a P4 1.7GHz Socket 478 CPU, 20GB Quantum Fireball 5400 rpm Master, 300GB Maxtor 7200 rpm ATA133 16mb buffer, 1GB DDR333, P4P800-E Deluxe Motherboard, 17" KDS Monitor, MicroFucker Inferred Keyboard & Wireless Mouse, OEM Non Brand Name DVD Writer, 52x32x52 Liteon CD Writer, ATI 9600 Pro 128mb AGP 8x.... This is my first PC that I have been upgrading over time.
I want a stable OS that is not a resource hog. I am sick of having my PC crash, and being nailed with everything known to man on the net, that was meant to target MicroSoft OSes. I am in great need of suggestions for an OS that is simple to use, but also very powerful. Something that will not be a waste of money, and will be well worth my time and money.
Anyone know of an OS that may be suitable for me? If so please do share you're ideas, and help.
Thank you,
Tony
What exactly makes you think that your mother board won't work with Linux?
Just because the manufacturer doesn't supply drivers for Linux doesn't mean it isn't supported. Unless it has a wierd hard disk controller, I really don't think you would have a problem. You may know something you are not telling us, which is why I ask.
But as for your current windows based games, well don't expect them to run on a non-Windows operating systems. Some games will work under wine using linux or BSD, but the performance hit can sometimes be bad, and sometimes not. I don't run games under wine.
Some of your simpler windows programs will run under Wine. Don't expect most of them to, and sometimes getting a program to rununder wine can be a chore. IF you go to a new OS, you in general go to new apps. If you go to Linux or BSD, you get a bunch of great open source apps with the Operating System.
BSD rocks, but takes more work to set up than your avg. Linux distro.
My advice is to first get yourself a copy of knoppix (http://www.knoppix.org) and try linux out from the Knoppix live CD. See if it fits your requirements.
-
[The down side is, it doesn't have drivers to support Linux, and or anything other then Windows OSes. This is a slight downfall.
Just for future referance check that a piece of hardware is Linux compatable before you buy it if you intend to use it under Linux. Check the Internet first, as mobrian said, just because it doesn't come with Linux drivers it doesn't mean it isn't Linux compatable.
-
OSX sounds like exactly what you are looking for - too bad it isn't available for PCs. Yet.
Ubuntu seems to be great for beginners. New users love it, seasoned users hate it. Sounds like a good place to start to me.
-
Just work your way up the UNIX ladder - starting with Ubuntu, and ending with something somewhat more complex - such as I dunno, Fedora? I haven't tried many Linux Distros.
-
I would never, ever, recommend anything RPM-based to a newbie. The last thing someone needs when using a new operating system is a dependancy hell. You can use ubuntu, or Debian if you're up to a bit of research.
-
I would never, ever, recommend anything RPM-based to a newbie. The last thing someone needs when using a new operating system is a dependancy hell. You can use ubuntu, or Debian if you're up to a bit of research.
Huh. I started with Redhat 8 and I never had a 'problem' with dependancies. I know 'dependancy hell' exists, i hear people talking about it, but I have never experienced it. Apt-get works for Redhat/Fedora.
In my opinion, the UI involved in installing rpm's on fedora is much better than the UI involved with installing deb's on ubuntu.
In fedora, I can just double click on an RPM in Gnome and it will ask for Root's password and install. In Ubuntu I have to 'sudo dpkg -i package.deb' in a command line.
New users typically like GUI more than entering commands in CLI :-P
-
Using .deb packages is a bit like buying OSX Tiger, then running nothing but classic apps on it. If you're running Ubuntu, or anything else Debian based, then you should use apt-get. Otherwise, you're making it harder to do something that was designed to be simple.
-
Dependency hell is part of the fun! Seriously! You can learn a lot just by going through it a few times. By definition it forces you to see what libraries are used where, and gives useful insights into the inner-workings of Linux.
But unfortunately for me, programs like synaptic have made system maintenance in Fedora extraordinarily easy. Dependency hell is no longer my problem. Of course that deprives newbs of the challenge and experience of figuring out how to use the rpm command properly to query, erase, install, and upgrade. Or doing web searches for rpm repos that have the packages you need.
[offtopic]I think that the marketing dicks who decided that everyone gets to use a computer have kinda ruined things for the rest of us. If every dumbhole wants to use a computer, of course you are going to have garbage like Windows, Excel, Powerpoint, Roxio, and proprietary scanner interfaces. I'd rather have only people who really care about computers - how they run, how they could run, how they should run, and how to build your own - using Linux. That would prevent the industry from getting too user-friendly, since so far, it seems that user-friendly = poweruser-unfriendly.[/offtopic]
-
I can recommend using Ubuntu. I started with Mandrake - which I can honestly NOT recommend :), and then switched to Ubuntu. I'm quite advanced now as a Linux user and see no reason to switch from Ubuntu. It is a slight resource hog, but nothing compared to Windows - and can be easily chopped down to be less demanding. With specs like yours - you have nothing to worry about.
There are many expert users who are happy with Ubuntu - so I don't see why worker201 says they hate it. You can download it from ubuntulinux.org or order free (really free, no $ at all) CDs on shipit.ubuntu.org - it takes them 6 weeks to deliver though.
Ubuntu uses Gnome by default, and if you want something more robust (and more demanding resource-wise), you can switch to KDE (called Kubuntu) and if you want it to be more lightweight (but not just CLI), you can use XFCE (Xubuntu) or Fluxbox (Flubuntu - not too widespread ATM). Ubuntu has massive online support at Ubuntuforums.org and on IRC at #ubuntu, #kubuntu, #xubuntu etc. Definitely a good place to start - and has LiveCDs available if you want to try it out.
-
Thank you for all the ideas... This PC will keep windows regardless. I need it for my programs, and games. I will be putting something else on the 2nd I will be building. As for what I am not sure right now.
About Redhat, I used a copy of Mandrake one time, and it was a real bitch trying to get it to notice my eithernet cards, and I never did find drivers that supported it, so i gave up, and deleted it. That was a different board then, and to be honest I think I would be better off with something like Free BSD. Not sure though, as I know nothing at all about it.
For the most part I am a lazy bastard when it comes to reading, and research. I want something simple and easy to use. Not something that will challenge me, I get enough of that with the BS of windows. Every time you go to a damn web site some shit is forced into you're PC. It really sucks that companies can get away with that shit, knowing damn well it lags the persons computers down like a mother fucker. I never place spyware in my appz, or programs, and nothing hidden. Free is free, no bullshit added..
Take Yahoo messenger for example. They have two check boxes at the beginning of installation. One is asking if you want the stupid toolbar, the other is to make them you're start page. Ok you say no to both, and as soon as you open IE that fucking toolbar is right there. Now that shit aught to be illegal. I notice that with a lot of programs. You say no, and you end up with it anyway.
Half the damn anti spyware appz put shit on you're PC while taking others off. Whats the damn point of having them. And wtf is with windows update? All you are doing is installing & replacing old errors with new ones. What has Microsoft ever done right other then Win98. They don't give a rats ass about the user, its all about the money. And half the shit they come out with is ripped off someone else.
Again thank you for the ideas, although I have no clue what most of you are on about.. But then I did just wake up..
I would go back to Mac, but it has been so dam long since I have used one, and the prices are outrageous compared to PCs. Though in many ways a Mac will smoke a PC any day.
-
FreeBSD is harder to use than most Linux distros, I recommend either Ubuntu or Vector Linux because they've both worked well enough for me. Seriously though you sound like the kind of person who'd prefer a Mac, I haven't used one for any great length of time but I'm told it's the best option if you want something easy to use, stable and secure.
Oh and don't use Internet Explorer use Opera or Firefox, don't use Outlook use thunderbird.
-
Just work your way up the UNIX ladder - starting with Ubuntu, and ending with something somewhat more complex - such as I dunno, Fedora? I haven't tried many Linux Distros.
Kevin,
This post illustrates how little you know about the various distributions of Linux Fedora and Ununtu are both fairly easy to use an example of a more hardcore distro might be Slackware.
How many distros have you actually tried?
Not many going by this post, so don't you think you've been a bit quick to judge Linux?
-
I've worked with Debian, it's quite nice actually.
-
I started with Mandrake - which I can honestly NOT recommend :)
Why's that?
It's interesting to know why different people dislike different GNU/Linux distributions. It seems like it wouldn't be possible for about half a billion people to each be happy with a single GNU/Linux distribution, and it wouldn't. Windows has about half a billion users, but they're definetly not all completely happy with the way things are done (not muzzy. Not Aloone_Jonez. (RE: default settings, and probably other stuff. Infact, probably noone bar some offline users, can be completely happy with the way things are done on Windows.)). The same half a billion users, using different GNU/Linux distributions based on whatever the hell they want, will be miles happier with the way things are done, because they have all the different distributions and tools to chose from, and their source code, and everything they'd need to make their own system (read: the inappropriately-named "Linux From Scratch (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/)").
It's beautiful, and it's called freedom. And it's why worker201 doesn't and probably won't ever have much of a problem (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=108372&postcount=4) to worry about.
With enough effort, there is little doubt that Tony, you couldn't "Find The Right OS" in a GNU/Linux distribution (either an already-existant one with or without a few customizations or one you create yourself).
I am now going to post an overly large picture that has previously been posted by skyman:
(http://users4.ev1.net/~bdfaith/Op-Ed/Images/celebrate%20diversity/celebrate%20diversity.jpg)
Have a good day.
-
Seriously though you sound like the kind of person who'd prefer a Mac, I haven't used one for any great length of time but I'm told it's the best option if you want something easy to use, stable and secure.
Agreed. OSX is one of the finest operating systems ever made, in my opinion. And Apple hardware is good too. It is super-easy to use - in fact, I had problems when I started with it, because I assumed that some tasks would be much harder to accomplish than they actually were. But then you pop open X11 or a terminal, and you're basically using a Linux machine. If you want to - if not, the you don't ever have to see it. Worth every penny.
BTW, there are plenty of nice IM clients that don't screw you with extras - Trillian is the one I use in Windows, and it supports Yahoo! and AOL. Gaim for Linux, Adium for OSX. No need to install crappy programs like AOL or Ymessenger.
BTW2 - Jenda, I have heard a lot of veteran Linux users complain about Ubuntu. I've never used it myself, so I don't know shit about it. I've heard good things from newbs, and bad things from vets. That's all I was saying there.
-
OSX sounds like exactly what you are looking for - too bad it isn't available for PCs. Yet.
Ubuntu seems to be great for beginners. New users love it, seasoned users hate it. Sounds like a good place to start to me.
OSX is available for x86_(64?). It's not available in retail but you can download it and tweak it for it to run nice on your custom built desktop. It even works with SSE2 only processors. However I would still as you recommend Ubuntu as a GNU/Linux distro. But, I wouldn't recommend it if you game a lot. A good idea is to check Wine's and Cedega's database against supported games before you get into business. And remember that Cedega is payware (free cvs sucks). On the other hand you could get an Xbox360 or a standard Xbox to play on which I think is much better.
-
Mac OS X is NOT "available for IA32/IA64. It's designed to run on Apple-branded development machines, and the "final version" will be dependent on Apple hardware as well.
Apple has no intention of becoming an OS vendor. They're simply switching their processors from PPC to IA32.
Do NOT consider running a cracked version of Mac OS X on a generic PC. There's a LOT of work involved that requires prior knowledge of UNIX.
-
This change might be a good thing, will it improve the speed of of the Windows software emulation?
-
This change might be a good thing, will it improve the speed of of the Windows software emulation?
I'd guess that you could run Windows on the intel macs (you can on the development ones, and I haven't heard that Apple will change this on the final macs), and that wine should work even better for it after a bit ('cause it's like running wine in an x86 GNU/Linux computer, I think).
-
OSX is available for x86_(64?). It's not available in retail but you can download it and tweak it for it to run nice on your custom built desktop. It even works with SSE2 only processors. However I would still as you recommend Ubuntu as a GNU/Linux distro. But, I wouldn't recommend it if you game a lot. A good idea is to check Wine's and Cedega's database against supported games before you get into business. And remember that Cedega is payware (free cvs sucks). On the other hand you could get an Xbox360 or a standard Xbox to play on which I think is much better.
The pitiful OSX on Intel machines is just some cracked version of the developer preview. The majority of all mac apps aren't compiled for it, so you're stuck with the bundled software.
But you can always get Darwin, or BSD.
:macos: on IA32 = :(
-
The cracked version of the development system requires you to install Darwin first. It's a pain.
-
Reggie,
This post illustrates how little you know about the various distributions of Linux Fedora and Ununtu are both fairly easy to use an example of a more hardcore distro might be Slackware.
How many distros have you actually tried?
Not many going by this post, so don't you think you've been a bit quick to judge Linux?
I myself have tried Fedora, Debian, and Ubuntu before. Debian was slow. Fedora was okay, but still slower than Windows 2000 on my old PC(I've been focusing on Macs for a while). Ubuntu still gave me near same performance with Fedora, though it was slightly faster. I then gave FreeBSD a shot and it gave me acceptable performance, and I will soon be replacing Windows with OS/2(My newer PC[custom made] will handle the games). With these OSes, I can have a wider range of availble software working at the speeds they were meant to have...
-
I myself have tried Fedora, Debian, and Ubuntu before. Debian was slow. Fedora was okay, but still slower than Windows 2000 on my old PC(I've been focusing on Macs for a while). Ubuntu still gave me near same performance with Fedora, though it was slightly faster. I then gave FreeBSD a shot and it gave me acceptable performance, and I will soon be replacing Windows with OS/2(My newer PC[custom made] will handle the games). With these OSes, I can have a wider range of availble software working at the speeds they were meant to have...
You must have done something wrong. Debian is fast.
And who the hell wants to actually use something as obsolete as OS/2?
It was obsolete when it came out, and it sure as hell is now.
-
I would go back to Mac, but it has been so dam long since I have used one, and the prices are outrageous compared to PCs. Though in many ways a Mac will smoke a PC any day.
I would suggest considering it. They really aren't much more expensive then other oem computers
I never imagined myself advertising for Apple, but ever since I bought my 12" Powerbook, I've liked em.
You get the power of Unix hidden behind apple's infamous interface, without losing any real unix features (except a crippled X11, but that's another story)
-
XFree86 has a OSX port as well. You don't have to use Apple's X11.
-
any chance of X.org?
-
I would suggest considering it. They really aren't much more expensive then other oem computers
I never imagined myself advertising for Apple, but ever since I bought my 12" Powerbook, I've liked em.
You get the power of Unix hidden behind apple's infamous interface, without losing any real unix features (except a crippled X11, but that's another story)
Infamous?
As for X11... who gives a fuck? And how is it crippled? It can do exactly what you need it to do when running X on X.
Nothing.
X11 isn't needed for a damn thing. Hell, I don't even like the way X11 is implemented by anybody. I'd rather the OS simply treat each X11 app like any other app, each with its own Dock icon.
Even then, I'd still avoid X11 apps like the plague. Ugly, non-standard, and usually buggy. Nearly all are shoddy ports, and the ones that aren't are lackluster to begin wih. CHEAP.
-
Infamous?
As for X11... who gives a fuck? And how is it crippled? It can do exactly what you need it to do when running X on X.
Nothing.
X11 isn't needed for a damn thing. Hell, I don't even like the way X11 is implemented by anybody. I'd rather the OS simply treat each X11 app like any other app, each with its own Dock icon.
Even then, I'd still avoid X11 apps like the plague. Ugly, non-standard, and usually buggy. Nearly all are shoddy ports, and the ones that aren't are lackluster to begin wih. CHEAP.
Apple should create some kind of SDK for converting X apps to cacoa or whatever it is called.
-
I don't think that's possible because X apps draw their own widgets or use a separate library like GTK+.
-
I don't think that's possible because X apps draw their own widgets or use a separate library like GTK+.
Well, they can create something to batch convert the functions of most used widgets to built-in Mac OS X widgets.
And I wasn't talking about GTK+ or QT, I was talking about pure X apps.
-
I like Apple's X11, it's not bloated with stupid shit like the whole resource sharing thing. Any halfway decent Macintosh is going to run just fine. The Xserver, imo, is just a relic from the old mainframe setup. X11, .NET, just more of the same. How about, instead of some insanely overpowered server, and some ghetto ass clients, we just make a decent computer? Aqua and Quartz are nice and light.
-
Xorg isn't light?
That's news to me.
According to the Y Windows about page (http://www.y-windows.org/about.html), being network transparent doesn't reduce the speed of the system on local hosts.
-
The only pproblem with debian is its not dated enough to work on my 2001 computer. I'm installing OS/2 just to give a dated OS a shot on a dated computer.
-
Xorg isn't light?
That's news to me.
According to the Y Windows about page (http://www.y-windows.org/about.html), being network transparent doesn't reduce the speed of the system on local hosts.
I've never used X.org, the 200 MHz computer I ran it on would take several weeks to compile it.
-
I've never used X.org, the 200 MHz computer I ran it on would take several weeks to compile it.
I doubt that very much. I'd be surprised if it took more than a few days. It's not as huge as you'd think, and you more than likely wouldn't need half the stuff.
Why would you wanna compile Xorg anyhow? Why not get a binary?
X11 and it's client/server design, is one of the things I prefer in GNU/Linux over the way things are done in Windows.
-
My understanding is that simply converting an X11 file to a Cocoa file would not be simple, unless there was a one-to-one widget scenario. And even then, they access system resources differently.
I don't see what the complaint is. X11 works just fine. We all know that teh JimmyJames has a problem with X, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
-
To "convert" apps to Cocoa, they'd have to be rewritten in Objective-C. At this point, you're totally rewriting the app. On top of that, X11 draws using bitmaps, while Quartz draws using PDF and PostScript. Raster vs. vector there. Yeah, that's not so hard to fix... but the Obj-C thing would require the whole thing be redone.
Most X11 apps are C++, so I guess it could be easier to rewrite for Carbon, as that's a C++ API. However...
Carbon carries a lot of legacy Macintosh baggage with it. It's the "modernized" version of the Mac Toolbox API, and therefore would require that certain bits be rewritten to interface with the API. Also, Carbon doesn't support certain things that aren't permitted in Mac OS 8.6/9.x as it was designed as a backward-compatible transition API.
In the end, the easiest and best way to run X11 apps is just to compile the thing for Darwin, and run it in X11 :)
As for my earlier statement, it's not so much a dig on X11, but a statement of the usefulness of it on OS X. There's a lot of good software out there that can be run... but... there's also an equal amount of good software that runs natively on OS X. That's all I'm saying in that regard. If you wanna use UNIX apps, just go with Linux or BSD. No need to spend the $$ on a Mac. Or dual-boot X and Linux!
-
Ummm, objective-C is a superset of regular C, and should be able to interoperate. Also, there's no reason why a standard C app couldn't call all the required libraries and everything for AppKit, to use the Cocoa technologies though.
You can port something to Cocoa without rewriting it in objective-C.