FEB 27

Windows Vista does require a more powerful computer, than most people possess, for apparently little benefit over XP, so Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot with this version. :'(

But despite what Linux enthusiasts may claim not all versions of Linux will run on a low spec computer. OS's that match XP for features, such as SUSE, or Linspire, require considerably more ram than 128mb, even Ubuntu needs at least 256mb to run well.
Only small systems such as Puppy, or DSL, will run well on low spec computers.
There is also the problem of driver support, if the version of Linux you are using does not work properly "out of the box", it can be very difficult to sort of problems, as it isn't as user friendly as Windows.
But Dell offering computers with Linux preinstalled, could be just the boost Linux needs and it skips the problems of getting all your hardware to work.
In the meantime try Puppy Linux:
http://www.puppylinux.org :D

But studies have shown that linux computers, on average, are discarded half as quickly as Windows machines. If you install Ubuntu on a low-end new machine today, it'll likely last you six or eight years, twice as long as if you install vista on a low-end new machine.

I certainly agree though, Linux can be more trouble to get running out of the box, especially since a lot of hardware manufacturers don't support it, but that is certainly not the fault of the operating system, it's just that it hasn't penetrated the market enough.

Who says you need to re-use old PCs for the desktop role?

Why not firewalls? Home servers? NAS? etc.

Its not that hard when there are pre-made Linux and BSD solutions specifically made for these roles.

I use my ancient Pentium I 150Mhz from 1995 for a firewall, and Celeron 500Mhz from 1998 for a file/print/scan server.

I always take old PCs (people that don't want), and setup up Linux on them to give to charities. If possible, sometimes I underclock them to reduce power consumption.

I contest the points above that Linux is harder to get to work out of the box when things go wrong.

With Windows, most drivers are third party supplied, so you need a fist full of driver CDs while you install XP, and forget it if your hardware isn't supported under Vista. The next step is to attempt to download the drivers from the internet. Hands up how many people have seen the following from XP: "Windows can't find the drivers to install modem. Would you like Windows to download a driver from the Internet".

With linux all the available "drivers" are included with the distribution, so it's more likely to work "out of the box".

The divergence is when things go wrong. With Windows, if Windows can't fix it you have very little recourse. With Linux if the GUI installer fails you can often get a geek to dive in to the command prompt and make things work.

The difference is that with Linux you have that option of last resort. Both Windows and Linux distributions have their foibles, I prefer freedom to DRM and remote control anti-piracy bombs.

You can easily install today's Linux distribution on an old Pentium---but you will need to not run some of the bells and whistles that come standard now.

A modern linux system has many layers: the kernel, the X Window system, the Window manager (XVWM, Sawfish, IceWM,...), the Desktop Manager (Gnome & KDE). Each additional layer is prettier, more user friendly, and more of a resource hog.

If you want to run linux without X at all, like the home server or firewall, then a 486 will have no problem. If you want all the GNOME/KDE bells and whistles, then you'll need at least a recent Pentium system, and even then it may stall.

My recommendation for computers that are modern but getting older is to install Ubuntu, which has a well-deserved reputation for getting all the drivers in order, and then not run Gnome. Personally, I use IceWM, but there are a hundred other window managers at this level. They are familiar in terms of the windows look, but do not keep the many Gnome helpers running 24/7. [You can still run most Gnome applications, by the way.]

With Linux, it either works, or it takes a geek of the utmost to get it to work, or it will never work unless you write custom drivers. For most people, if it does not work out of the box, and they can't install standard drivers from either a CD, or the Internet, they will never get it to work.

I don't believe that most people have access to a "geek to dive in to the command prompt", so this option is not going to work for them. They do, however, have various tech support options, such as Dell tech support, or "Geek Squad" that they can take their problems to. Those options are likely to have almost no support for anything other than Windows or OSX. Sure, you can pay for premium phone support from Redhat, but if you thought that Windows was expensive, you will faint at the price of a Redhat subscription.

Linux, and *BSD are great OS options. I run multiples of both, but unfortunately, I also have to run several Windows machines to accomplish all my tasks.

Depending on the distributer, Linux can work out of the box almost all of the time. However home users don't want to have to do research to choose the vendor for their OS to get their machine working. The problems mainly occur on high end/very new hardware(video cards mainly) and on wireless cards whose makers have contractual obligations to only produce drivers for the company from redmond. For problems involving the graphics cards, the answer is usually very simple, and anyone familiar with Linux should be able to walk a new user through this.

As long as the only viable solution to using Linux is an install into a machine 'after market' there will be difficulties. There are lots of user's groups all over the country that would love to help people that want to try Linux. If the homeowner is not into being social, there are more and more small businesses seeing the profit potential of providing qualified help at reasonable rates. The product they are selling/providing assistance for is totally free after all, the only thing they need to charge for is their time and expertise.

BUT!
The main problem with mainstream Linux update is something that no one has come out and said yet. The vast majority of people do not know and do not care to know how to upgrade their own machine. Currently I can count on my fingers the number of certified vendors putting Linux on new machines. This is the big switch, once it turns 'on' Linux will have real traction in the U.S., and things will start to change.

I'm possibly ignorant, though by definition there's no way for me to know that. But my point is, I haven't been convinced of a need to switch from XP. I build, rebuild, and upgrade my systems from junk other folks want to get rid of, and XP seems to work well on my 1GHz Pentium III. Also, it has the features I want, and the security patches, software firewall and antivirus program and and and seem to keep me sufficiently secure. So I'm not seeing a real need to switch to Vista.

I realize my system isn't exactly vintage, and I don't do any online gaming or video editing. But I really haven't seen an advantage to Vista that warrants a change.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that many people have systems that can be upgraded to the point where a new operating system can be put off. And an old memory module or hard drive (try a UIDE controller to speed up your HD, it really makes a difference) is a lot easier to dispose of ecologically than an entire system.

I realize I'm entirely sidestepping the issue of Linux, but that's because I'm still promising myself to try it "someday" so I have nothing to contribute on that score. I'm just saying there are alternatives to scrapping an entire computer that can keep you on one OS level for quite a while.

I've installed both 6.06 and 6.10 versions of Ubuntu on several desktops (including 2 dual-boot installations with XP) and one laptop. These machines included everything from Pentium II to IV and a couple of AMD processors. I have yet to have a single problem with initial install. The two non-profit offices that I work with now have switched 90% to Linux and everybody seems pretty happy. The ability to continue using older hardware and complete elimination of software expense is a huge benefit. There is a little bit of a steep learning curve at the very beginning while you learn how to do fairly basic stuff like install printer drivers, set up file sharing and get all of your Internet browser plug-ins (e.g. Java, Flash, etc.) installed. There are free (open source) versions of almost every useful Windows application you can think of... Gimp instead of Photoshop, Nvu instead of Dreamweaver or Frontpage, Open Office instead of Microsoft Office, Evolution instead of Outlook, Scribus instead of Pagemaker, and Inkscape instead of Illustrator. I run a firewall on each of the Linux installations I've done, but no anti-virus software and haven't had a single problem! No need to pay Symantec or Trend Micro (et al) and no bogging down the system with their annoying software! All that said, I do still keep XP on a couple of machines to run things like Delorme Street Atlas and my favorite FPS games. Bottom line: Linux ROCKS!!

The old P3 Compaqs and Dells and others seem to be disappearing, even from the refurbishing companies now. No doubt headed back to China or in land fills but hopefully to recyclers. What a waste! What a great firewall or Linux server!

I made the switch to Linux over a month ago after having been a total (insert OS here) know nothing. A friend of mine convinced me to give Linux a shot and now it is the only OS I would ever consider putting on my machines. My starter being an HP m7580n which had some trouble running XP Media Edition and I was constantly fighting with HP and M$ over support for it, because "Mike" or "Joe" the Indian guy over in Delhi that they outsourced support to could barely speak English, let alone have any understanding of what a "driver" was... If I could have reached through the phone and b*tch slapped the guy I might have mildly considered sticking with M$, but alas.

Anyway, I tried out Fedora6 and everything worked..Except for my Video card and TV, and games. Nix Fedora and on to Ubuntu. That ran exactly the same as Fedora and aside from artwork pretty much is the same -- Blah! Next up was SuSe. Networking nope, Video nope, Sound nope...list goes on. Just as im about to reinstall XP, I come across Sabayon. It looks cool and flashy and all so I give it a last chance shot. WOW! LiveDVD gave me a fully functioning 3D cube desktop, NVIDIA 7900GT video card auto detected, sound blasting away on kde login, 3.5.5 kde menu totally loaded up with every manner of app you can imagine, network auto detected, internet...list went on and on and on. I spent the next 2 days on that livedvd playing. I never imagined that Linux is capable of such power and amazing ability. M$ could never hope to dream to accomplish such things with that crap they call an OS. All done for free by people who just love Linux and freely distributed. Just...WOW! Needless to say, I run Sabayon and probably allways will, but whatever flavor on Linux you run, good on ya!

number of computers laying around my house, many of which I dug out of Dumpsters. One of these happens to be an old AMD K6 which won't even run Win '98 anymore because the old drivers are unobtainable, however, it runs Linux just fine. I also have an old PII 300 laptop currently running Debian Etch that I take along on motorcycle trips to take advantage of the free wireless now available at most hotels and campgrounds, and I use it at work when I need to create work related graphics, etc. because my company doesn't want to pay for the M$ software I'd need to make it on theirs. Even my die-hard Windows using friends come running to me to salvage their data from a corrupted XP machine with a Live Linux Distro. I'm not an Uber Geek or an IT Pro, just a Blue Collar who likes to tinker.
I bought my first XP machine in 2003, and the answer was as obvious to me then as it is now. I switched to Linux a few weeks later, and I haven't looked back since.
To those who still swear by XP and claim they'll never upgrade to Vista, please bear in mind that your swimming hole is slowly drying up. M$ wants your money, and plans to get it one way or another. Getting an old computer now, and playing around with a few Linux Distros will be time wisely spent by the time 2013 rolls around.

I was at a bookstore in April, 1998 and ran into a high school friend that I hadn't seen since 10 years prior. He told me about Linux and I went to the computer section of the store and picked up a copy of "Sam's Teach Yourself Linux in 24 Hours" in the back of which was a copy of Redhat Linux (kernel 2.0.36) . So, I bought a second hdd (orig hdd still needed Win95 for school) and I started the install of Linux on this second hdd in my Pentium 333. Eventually, I stopped using Win 95 (and M$) altogether. I never looked back.
While I saw a system that APPEARED to be complicated, I immediately saw incredible POWER in this system and wanted to tap it. I began a practice (that continues to this day) of purchasing Linux books and learning from them. I changed my college major to Management Information Systems and I've since decided to make a career with Linux. I am currently working to obtain LPIC certification which will be considerably easier than I thought. All I need now is a bit more commercial experience with Linux and I hope to be able to get the job of my dreams. In addition, I've learned an incredible lot about networking, routing, subnetting, firewalls, OSI 7-layer model and more.
In addition, I've developed an INCREDIBLE disdain for M$ and have come to resent their products, philosophy, and most of all their business practices. How many companies have been getting the shaft as a result of the way M$ has leveraged it's monopolistic position? I don't care to count.
The only M$ product I bought since 1994 was XP. That was only because I needed a laptop and could not (at the time) take the time to put Linux on it. I wonder how many other people there are like me out there... who'll discover Linux and find nirvana.

To all those windows users who would like to try linux but are intimidated, there are dozens of options. One is live cds. Live cds allow you to run a linux session off of a cd without accessing the hard drive. That allows you to try it out, without dumping windows. Another option involves partitioning the hard drive and dual booting linux with windows. If nothing else you should be using linux for the internet. No viruses or spyware. Many distros have installation cds that allow you to resize ntfs partitions non-destructively so that you can add a linux partition. That way you can try linux out and slowly transition to it, finding linux ways of doing things that you are used to doing with windows.

Try it, it works. I haven't had windows installed on any of my machines in over 2 years. It's wonderful!!

I was working retail and saw a man standing, looking at the "software wall". I went over to ask if I could help.

He asked, "Can I just buy the 'Upgrade' version of XP? Why is the full version $100 more? What else does it do?"

So I told him that Upgrade has everything the full version has, but it will only work if you already have Windows. He said his computer was a gift, that it had no OS. "Ok, then you will have to get the full version."

"But I don't want to spend an extra $100."

So I pointed to the RedHat box on the shelf, then to some of the other boxes: "This has everything that is in that box (WinXP Pro, $300), and that box (MS Office, $400), and doesn't need all these (various antivirus products) at all. $39."

I think he stopped breathing. He was staring at me, his face turned red, then sort of purple, he sputtered once or twice, his mouth opening as if to speak then closing again, and at last furiously reached up and grabbed the $200 WinXP Standard box and _stormed_ up to the cash register.

-------------

MS propaganda has been very successful in convincing most people that they need MS Windows in order to successfully use their machines. Windows pricing is designed (in my opinion) to make buying a new machine more attractive than upgrading an existing machine.

One of the few arguments that I have tried for getting people to use Linux has been to tell them, "The next time you want to get a new computer, let your old computer be your _new_ computer. You have nothing to lose, since you're already thinking about new hardware and you know you'll have to re-learn Windows anyway, and I might be able to save you a couple thousand dollars."

I don't think the correct conclusion is being drawn from this study. The average linux user is not the same type of person as the average computer user. Us geeky types tend to hold onto our computers longer since we get attached to them. The average know-nothing user is not going to replace their computer less often if they use linux. They'll upgrade as soon as their computer "feels slow" which might take longer if they're using linux, but depending on what software they try to run, it might not take longer.

bullshit

I run linux as well, and love it. We also have to remember linux power saving technologies are a little lacking still. What is the environmental impact of a bunch of laptops not sleeping

Linux is not the only operating system that can run on old machines, ya know. I've had my Macintosh G3 Blue & White for 7 years now, and it runs perfectly on OSX 10.3. I've been able to upgrade the processor, put in a wireless PCI card, new hard drive, and a CD-R drive to keep it current and functional. It's not the speediest machine in the world, but I intend on getting some more life out of it as a network drive when I upgrade to a faster machine, by which I mean another Mac!

So, who do you know who runs Linux and has not upgraded hardware since 1999 and still ahs a functional production server that takes any level of workload. I’m not talking about that stagnant firewall or POP mail server. Would you still run you 1999 or older hardware as your desktop system? Most likely not. And the power savings from energy star compliant devices with proper driver support may make up a large portion of that difference in costs. The wasted $100 in annual electricity from that old Linux hardware may more than make up for the cost of a Windows workstation.

Lastly, why not change that old Windows box over to a Linux mail gateway or firewall. Seems to me that Linux is the ideal candidate for discarded hardware that no one else would ever want. I have an old 286 around here some place that I am sure some geek would just love to try and run his Linux desktop on!

Linux, where old systems go to die…

I support, among other things, an installation of 60+ Pentium IV 2.66GHz PCs with 512MB of RAM. The PCs were delivered and set up 4 years ago with Windows XP, pre-SP1. They were blazingly fast at the time. Then they had to go up to SP1, then SP2. They also have to run antivirus software - thankfully we do not have to use one that is extremely heavy on system resources, like Norton. The main software installation has not changed much over the years - MS Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, a calendar program, some institution-specific stuff.

I have an identical PC in my office. I run Slackware, initially v9.1, then 10.1, then 10.2 and now 11. I constantly compile and install new software, almost never clean up or remove libraries and binaries, run umpteen different services on my personal PC for testing purposes (Samba, Apache, MySQL, Squid, etc) and generally do not take very good care of my system to keep it a lean, mean computing machine. My work environment typically consist of 20+ Firefox tabs, a few draft Thunderbird emails open, a couple of notepad windows, one or two instances of the X calculator, and half a dozen open terminals to various machines. Firefox alone takes up 120+ MB of my total system RAM right now. I have all the "features" of an XP machine available to me, and then some.

The only time I've been able to detect some form of uncomfortable slowdown on my PC is when I'm running Windows in a virtual machine through qEmu - to which I dedicate half my system RAM - and even then I'm seeing slowdowns only in the actual virtual machine.

The 60+ PCs running Windows, on the other hand, have become absurdly slow, almost to the point of being unusable, and are currently being entertained for replacement (though we're not considering going Vista).

The UK government study is spot on in my book. Please, don't talk to me about SuSE or Linspire "matching XP for features" - these are some of the most limiting Linuces available, not to even start discussing Ubuntu. I have no idea what such distributions do to waste all that processing power. If you consider CD-ROM autoplay and continuous hard drive content indexing "features" then I suppose you'll have to continue buying the latest and greatest hardware the moment it comes out. Me, I prefer to actually *use* my computer to *do* stuff.

So we save landfill space (of which there is absolutly no shortage of), and we keep a bunch of old energy hungry machines pumping out extra CO2 and causing global warming (which IS a real problem!).

Since Linux is free and is largely used to run free software, one might guess that those who use Linux are more focused on saving money than those who don't. And thus perhaps more likely to save money another way: by going for longer without upgrading their hardware.

All together now, folks: correlation does not imply causation.

finely a real prove that every one can see that linux is better than windows ! I love linux and will never chose windows above linux !

Fact: People who run linux on their computers keep them longer.
Assumption: Running linux on a computer causes people to keep them longer - "A widespread switch to Linux could prevent millions of tons of waste from going into landfills."

Wouldn't it be equally as valid that the type of people who buy Linux are also the type of people who keep computers for longer periods of time? In that case, how would putting Linux on every person's computer help us keep computers out of landfills? The same people who are throwing them away now would be throwing them away even if every person on earth had Linux.

And, as exemplified in an earlier comment, how many Linux guys keep more than one computer running at a time? The life of each computer could be longer, but aren't you still throwing away MORE computers than the average user in the long run? A geek may be able to run Linux on a 386, but that doesn't mean he's not running it on three newer computers, and ALL of them are going to hit the landfill eventually.

see http://devshots.com

Your article is an example of the pointless and retarded articles that keep bombarding me on daily basis from anti-Microsoft morons like slashdot.

I don't give a shit about the environment. I just want a decent OS that works with my hardware.

Enjoy your Linux dudes. We don't fucking care.

Sorry for abusing the comment system.
This page looks messed up in Firefox 2 (for Windows anyway). The article text and comments are overlapping with the ads on the right, so it's really hard to read.

Just because linux boxes lasts longer than windows boxes it is not a fact that hardware lifespans in general will be prolonged if all users started using linux.

Linux is often used as the second OS on the old pc, setup as homeserver, mailserver, ftp etc. making the hardware lifespan longer.

Your article is an example of the pointless and retarded articles that keep bombarding me on daily basis from anti-Microsoft morons like slashdot.

I don't give a shit about the environment. I just want a decent OS that works with my hardware.

Enjoy your Linux dudes. We don't fucking care.

The only moron is yourself bud. You're obviously ignorant of everything around you....but maybe the only thing around you are 4 walls, a monitor, a keyboard & mouse, & your computers....at your momma's house. Most likely you've never seen the light of day & live completely in your false reality of the internet.

Say hi to mom for us.

that this site doesn't render correct in Mozilla FireFox 2.0.x.

I don't know where you got the idea our landfills are filling up and we're running out of room for our garbage? Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" TV show did an episode where they informed us that a few square miles of land, perhaps in Iowa, would suffice for the next thousand years for the entire USA (or perhaps it was the planet?). Regardless, reducing trash isn't a reason for anything.

I optimize specifically for firefox...unfortunately, it turns out that my comment engine blows, and it can be disrupted by one long string, like a link...a spam link even, which I have now deleted.

Apologies

This is a great article, and is something I was just talking about last week. I linked to your story just now in my recent article on the topic(check out the image too): http://fak3r.com/2007/03/08/re...ith-linux/

Also, I have an older post giving more background on how bad ewaste is, and how it's only going to get worse: http://fak3r.com/2006/11/28/un...-mountain/

Thanks, I've got you linked to, so I'll be back -- really nice site!

I switched to Linux two and a half years ago, and have only one program that forces me back to an old windows box (but not used much any more). Besides the OS stability (no blue screens) and the fast operation you can get a version of linux to run on hardware designed for Windows 98 - a linux that is continuously upgraded while MS stopped offering security updates. Have one of these? Then look at Xubuntu.com - good on a 266Mhz or faster computer system.

A statistic from the book "Garbage Land - On The Secret Trail Of Trash" by Royte, 2005 says that each computer system consumes Two Tons of raw materials in constructing it, along with nasty processing chemicals (cleaners, acids, etc), then contain lead, cadmium, and other things that often get land-filled. 50 million pc's get obsoleted every year. So stretching that cycle out is very important.

Energy savings from most pc's, after the 1996/1997 period when Energy Star was introduced are very energy efficient, whether you use a Pentium 1 or Pentium 4. Most energy use in a computer system is the monitor (especially crt's, like 90watts). A correctly setup computer with energy savings runs like 28watts. Less than the light-bulb on your desk lamp.

Go to distrowatch.com and look at all your options. Make a few live-CD's and try them out. I think you'll see that learning how to use them will not be much more difficult than learning to use that new Vista OS, and not drive you to hardware upgrade costs. You can save money, get work done, and protect the environment - not a bad day's effort?...

I've tried Fedora Core, Suse, and Ubuntu and I have not liked any of them. I tried to see what the big deal about Linux was, and I see that it's not really all that warranted at this time. The biggest issue I had was application compatibility and plug-in issues. I could not get flash player to install without going into the command line, that's ridiculous. Tried to run Windows Apps under Wine, forget that. I like to game on computers and Linux doesn't do that, therefore I can't use it for pretty much anything.
I tried it for work tasks and those weren't quite done right either. I've used MS Office and OpenOffice.org, as a matter of fact, for 3 weeks I switched that on all of the computers without telling anyone. I even named the desktop shortcuts Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, etc. People began complaining to me for templates, spell check, and stuff like that. I noticed that people weren't getting as much done, so I switched back to MS Office. People responded to that really well.
Linux is nice as a second or bargain-bin OS but as a primetime OS for the regular consumer, it's far from being ready.
Any by the way, I use Vista presently with IE7, and it hums along faster than XP w/SP2 with IE6.

Once all you MS idiots try Vista, you will be disappointed and move to OSX or Linux anyways. And for the record, Linux supports more hardware than Vista.

Or you could just run Windows XP :)-

Gnome crawls with less than 512mb of memory. In my experience, Vista run sparingly is lighter on resources. Sorry, dudes- this is a loaded argument. You could run legacy Windows, which is technically more supported- get all your drivers online (no CD usage) - and continue to truck on 10 years into the product's life cycle- and you'll even have a smoother and nicer kernel and interface. The Windows XP kernel, technologically, is years ahead of linux still.

One advantage of using Linux is that it is possible to deploy low power thin clients.

Applications run on the server and accept input and display their output on the thin client display.

how to:
http://www.mepis.org/docs/en/index.php/LTSP_Server

power savings:
http://www.cutterproject.co.uk...mption.php

As john posted above, keeping stuff out of landfill isn't the only benefit. The production of new PCs uses tremendous amounts of fossil fuels, water and hazardous substances.

With increasing availability of renewable electricity (wind, wave, solar and hydro) the ongoing eco-costs of running a system can be mitigated by switching to an energy supplier that uses renewables.

The laptop I'm typing this on right now is a Toshiba Portege 3480CT, with P3-500 and 192 MB of RAM. It was made in 1999 or 2000, I think and running Ubuntu with the Enlightenment 17 window manager, I get a speedy desktop system and with eye-candy too.

Before this laptop I used a Compaq Deskpro EN with P3-550 and again 192 MB of RAM, and I got great performance.

Remember kids, that these systems were blazingly fast when they came out...! It's not physics or your perception of time that has changed... it's the bloat in your fat operating systems and applications.

It's a crime that so many millions of good computers are dumped every year.

Go Linux! But:
Is this causation or correlation? Could it be that the majority of people with Linux tend to be the kind of people that don't upgrade as often? Could it be that owing to the greater number of games on the Windows platform (requiring high end hardware) means that users need to upgrade more. Don't get me wrong, I dig linux, but the interpretation of the results of the report appear specious to me.

Daniel

linux is a shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very good article, for a very good subject.

And the fact that more and more countries are switching to Linux is good and encouraging.

There's just one thing : "And, these days, it's as simple, as usable, and almost as pretty, as OSX [...] anyhow."

Lolol :)

Well, it depends of course of the person using it. Sure, for someone loving to ditch into computers and sofware it's true. But for almost everyone else, it's not. There're so many people out there who doesn't care how their computers works so long that it does what they need it to do: researchers, graphists, musicians, businessman, you name it.

For all those people, who I think do represent the big majority of computer users, Linux is NOT ready to be their home computer operating system.

And Vista is neither, that's for sure :)

But you cannot compare simplicity and usability of Linux and Mac OS X. Ask this to any researcher on CHI (Computer-Human Interaction), and they will laught. Ask my grand-mother to boot, surf, read/send emails, look at her photos on a linux and you will kill her. It's already hard enough for her on Mac OS X ! :)

And about prettyness... well, taste is a personal matter, that's for sure. But a fact is that all Apple products are signed by a team of well-known and professionally recognized designers. And it's the prefered environments of all creatives people. Now, sure, that's not a proof, because there cannot be any proof, taste is a personnal matter. But that's clearly an indication.

K.

I've been using Zenwalk Linux on several machines in my home for over a year now - including 1 P1 with 128mb of RAM. It works perfectly well, which is a sight better than it behaved with the version of Windows 98 it was running previously. Unlike Puppy or DSL, Zenwalk is a full-featured linux distribution that just happens to have the added benefit of being light on resources. Every once in a while I have to edit a text configuration file - but not often, and less often with every release.

Just wanted to point out that there are many distribution alternatives, and that while some of the most popular are also the most resource-hungry, if you dig around a bit you're likely to find a distribution that will suit whatever your particular needs are.

Go Linux! But:
Is this causation or correlation? Could it be that the majority of people with Linux tend to be the kind of people that don't upgrade as often? Could it be that owing to the greater number of games on the Windows platform (requiring high end hardware) means that users need to upgrade more. Don't get me wrong, I dig linux, but the interpretation of the results of the report appear specious to me.

Daniel

No...
While the latest version of most distributions needs pretty up-to date hardware to run. More so than winXP (but certainly less than vista), you can still install a current distribution on a P3 with 500mhz and 256mb of ram, and it will run as fast - you just need to use a more lightweight desktop environment. Ubuntu has made great efforts with Xubuntu... So you don't need to set up anything, you don't need to know anything, and you can still run the latest ubuntu on "old" hardware. But it's still the same system, it supports the same programs, and the same hardware!
In windows you can't change the desktop enviroment, so this might be a little harder to understand. A linux system works more like windows did when you still had it running on top of dos, and windows was just a program that ran on dos. (kind of)

OK - I have an old Celeron with one G hard disk and 96m RAM as a desktop at home. I only use it for internet and some office stuff. It is too weak to do this with XP since SP2 and anti-virus basically killed it.

I am going to have to buy a new PC if I saty with MS but I want to see if instaling Linux could save me the troble. I know nothing much about computers or how to install an OS. So, is there a Linux solution for me?

http://ada.bydgoszcz.pl/movies-anal-sex.html | movies anal sex | movies anal sex |

...at least a try at it:

Facts:
- Windows has the advantage that there is _one_ manufacturer with _one_ distribution.
- This full control makes it easier for 3rd parties to develop and deploy e.g. driver updates.
- MS offers a complete Windows Driver Kit, and "qualification programs" to make sure a driver works with the OS.

- Linux on the other hand, offers the chance to _solve_ a problem you might have with the core OS. Much more than you can ever with Windows, because with Linux you can look up the OS source and have it fixed if necessary. (And if you cannot do it yourself you can find or hire someone who can. Guaranteed.)

- OpenOffice vs. MS Office is more or less a matter of "being used to". I now work for a company that almost exclusively (*1) uses OpenOffice, and after years of using MS Office I found little I could not do almost the same way in Open-O as in MS-O. Some things actually work better (e.g. "Save as PDF", only to name one).
(*1)The only reason Open-O is not exclusively used are _customers_ sending us documents, which sometimes must be converted using MS tools. Who will be able to read these documents in, say, ten years?

- Landfills are certainly not a problem for the U.S., as there is also not the matter of fuel consumption (for manufacture and transport). The rest of the world might think otherwise.
- Correct: 'sole' Linux-users are currently mostly people who are experienced and/or conscientious enough to do so.

- Intel/AMD and Microsoft have both benefitted from the ever growing spiral of OS demands vs. new hardware developments. It will be interesting to see if this can be kept up at the same pace with the new "ecology" trend.

t.b.c.

We could all learn from Linux based technology. I guess in any field there will be products with higher quality but it's our duty to take technology one step ahead.

I hate Linux...is very hard to work with I'm glade that I have alternatives.

In the last month alone I've rescued a Pentium IV and two Pentium III's that had been tossed out on the street for trash pickup. Each computer had a very minor hardware problem that was easily fixed by going into my supply of computer "junque" parts and then give a fresh coat of Linux...and voila! Good as new computer!

If the Wintards want to keep wasting their money buying new hardware to run their bloated Windows operating system let them...and we Linux users will not only have a perpetual supply of free as in freedom and free as in free beer software, but we'll have a perpetual supply of free hardware too!

When I started using computers and became fascinated with them, we were at the windows 3.0 stage. I got heavy into computers in the win98 stage. Ever since then, I have been the "Tech Guy" for all of my family and friends to call when the didn't understand something. I cannot tell you how many times I have installed and re-installed windows because the user was the computers worst enemy, or because windows became incapacitated from viruses.
I always knew about linux in the back of my mind but never tried it. For years.

One day, I got infested myself with viruses and had to reformat MY shit. I called a friend of mine bitching about my hassle and he told me to try mandrake. Well, I researched it and it turned out that mandrake, at the time, had just transitioned to mandriva so I downloaded and installed it on my laptop. I played around with it, loved it, BUT... some devices weren't recognized and I hated the dependency hassle. RPM sucked, So Then I tried ubuntu.

Ubuntu recognized ALL of my LAPTOP peripherals (Imagine That) except my Dial-up modem (Linuxant, Greedy Fu*kers, but I didn't care). and APT-GET was a snap. I have been using ubuntu ever since, and in fact, as I type this post, I am doing the wonderful AUTOMATED UPGRADE from Feisty Fawn to Gutsy Gibbon. I will never go back to XP as primary. I do however run windows XP (dual Boot) because my Girlfriend likes Diner Dash and WINE has yet to implement Direct X easily.
Linux ROCKS
JC

I have tested Windows Vista vs Linux on my laptop :
autonomy on Windows : about 1h45
autonomy on Linux : about 2h45

Reactivity :
Windows : long startup, no reactivity
Linux : speeder startup with the best reactivity ( 3D desktop effects activated )

Conclusion ? My work is faster ( consumation is optimised in time ) and consume less energy ( for the same work ) on Linux.

Just Use It !

Retired recently, read Microsoft's warning on my machine at home, realized my company was no longer paying license fees, being law abiding, shut my computers off, got a friend to download Ubuntu for free from net, installed it, sweat bullets , it worked fine! Still using Ubuntu after many years. I simply do not buy products not supporting Ubuntu - their loss, not mine! For an older guy with limited resources, the old box works much better with Ubuntu, no more trips to the M$ dealer to get hard drive speeded up every few months, no more 'blue screen of death' episodes with data losses, no more virus problems, smooth trouble free computing and great happiness, Thank You to Ubuntu who ever you are! Poor kids at my church switching to Ubuntu on older cheaper second-hand boxes say it is better than not having computers at all. The Great Depression is upon us, give generously to the folks at the food banks, send old clothing to churches, we need it desperately and the future doesn't look to bright for the poorer among us either. Older computers with smaller Linux systems on them are still good for homework for the kids with less at home. Don't forget them, they may become the programmers of the future for America, so donate your old boxes, but stay legal, load them with Ubuntu first! Love our country and respect its laws, If you didn't pay for your OS, switch to the free and legal one, Ubuntu, and stay legal!

If you want all the GNOME/KDE bells and whistles, then you'll need at least a recent Pentium system, and even then it may stall.