My setup is a laptop with Windows 7, a laptop with Vista and a powerful desktop with OSX for work.
I would be running Linux across all of them except for software issues.
-I can’t connect to the proxy wireless at uni because it doesn’t support Linux and there are no work arounds since it needs to install stuff on your computer to work. So I use W7 on my laptop.
-I need a good design suite that all work together well like the Adobe CS4 does. Granted Gimp, Inkscape and the rest of the offerings are great and work really well, they just don’t integrate like you need them to when you are making something that uses Flash, Photoshop, AfterEffects, Illustrator and Final Cut to get to the final product. So I use OSX on my desktop (could use Windows too but Mac takes away most of the itch to modify everything. Too rigid for me to have any fun so I do more work)
-I would install Ubuntu on my girlfriends laptop but the Acer is a piece of junk and keeps breaking and we have to warranty it often. So to keep them happy we have to leave Vista on there. (she loved Ubuntu when I had it by the way, and she cares not at all for computers, not super computer-literate)

When/if Linux comes out with solutions to these small problems I will have an everyday machine that runs it. Until then I am stuck with the other choices.

The Dell came with Ubuntu pre-installed. Whsen I switched it on the Ubuntu loaded/initiated in about 10 minutes. Ubuntu is incredible — all the best of Windows and no virus problems. The Firefox browser is perfect. Their own Evolution Mail is just like Outlook was in Offictalle 2000 (that is a GOOD thing). The Dell came with 20 (twenty) games pre-installed. No lockups. It’s fast. It’s the best operating system I’ve ever used. THE BEST.

My two Windows laptops (one running Windows 7, one running Vista) now collect dust. Eventually I’ll switch them over to Ubuntu.

AS for the Dell — I ordered it with the 6-cell battery and a 3-year warranty for $350. The screen is clear & crisp. The sound is so-so (little computer/tiny speakers). The mouse is like all mouses on notebooks — works fine, but had to get used to it.

It was the best tech buy I’ve ever made.

I am actually quite happy with Windows 7. I am currently using it and I’m quite pleased with the results..

Hi again!

I just want to add another thought and that is if Linux had a market share like Windows and if Linux viruses would plentifully exist and pc:s got infected everywhere, the viruses could still destroy all the software, documents, photos etc except for the kernel. Someone could argue that this is equally bad. A Windows machine would crash and a Linux desktop would loose all the valuable stuff but leave the OS intact.

Björn Lundahl

I have been using Firefox for a few years now, and OpenOffice for a couple of years, and since I don’t do any gaming other than simple little web games, I no longer need a Windows PC other than the 1 desktop I use for Photoshop. I had an old eMachines PC I was about to give away, when I suddenly got inspired and figured I would try to put Linux on it just to get a working browser for my 4 year old to play his games on Nick.com and Disney.com. After years of installing Windows (every version ever, thousands of installs) I can say the Ubuntu install was the easiest OS install from scratch I have EVER encountered. I think my 4 year old might be able to do it.

Everything worked out of the box, and I was working on Firefox instantly via my home wifi. I was afraid I’d be on tech sites for a few days, but it was much easier getting up and running on Ubuntu than it ever was on a Windows install. That PC would NEVER be able to run Vista, in fact, I’d be afraid to try XP on it, but Ubuntu starts up in under a minute, and it runs faster than my new Dell running Vista (doing Openoffice and Firefox). Best of all, there was no real learning curve. I still don’t know Linux…don’t have to, just had to learn a new user interface that is even simpler than Vista.

So I was able to take a scrap heap PC and turn it into a box that my son can play all his little net games on, and in a pinch I can use it for anything I need. I am suddenly inspired to go buy an old laptop for myself since those used $100 jobs suddenly look much better. And Microsoft needs to step up because a few years from now, all you will need is a browser and highspeed connection as most apps will be available online, and that takes away the OS dependency. If all you need is a browser to run all your apps on (like the upcoming Microsoft Office on-line version), then a free OS that can do it on cheaper PCs looks really good.

Even if Linux had the same market share as Windows it still would be more secure than Windows. This because a Linux user does not have, by default, total rights to the system as a Windows user has. This means that even if Linux viruses would plentifully exist under such circumstances with such a market share, the viruses would still not be able to crash the OS. The viruses would therefore not have the rights to attack and destroy the kernel. This is the truth. Windows is not constructed to work in a network like the internet. Microsoft can not do much about this in a new version of Windows because they would need to rebuild a totally new OS from scratch and old Windows software would therefore not work in such a OS.

Despite this fact or because of it, I do not think that Linux will in the future out compete Windows for the desktop. Because no Windows software works in Linux and if Windows users did not care about this Microsoft would have the option, as I have mentioned, to build a new OS. The reality is that Windows users do care as companies and individuals have invested enormous amounts of effort, time and money in Windows systems and are therefore stuck with the system.

The only way to make a Window system acceptable is by better information and awareness about security risks, patches, better anti-virus software or anti-malware software, better firewalls, building more secure operating systems (but not from scratch, though) and browsers etc. A free anti-malware software should be be a part of the Windows OS. This is not possible because of the antitrust authorities. This is really sad because the internet would be a lot better place if all people had a anti-malware software installed. Microsoft is, though, soon offering a free anti-virus named Morro. This is a very good thing but a lot of people will not use it because they do not care and will not bother to download it! This makes the internet a more dangerous place. I use Avast and it doesn’t cost anything and it is probably much better than Morro ever will be as Morro will only offer basic protection. But it is still a good thing that Microsoft offers this software for free as some people can not even think of installing a security software from a exotic company like Alwil (the vendor which makes Avast) which they do not know anything about. Alwil is a very serious software company but they do not know it, Microsoft, though, is naturally very famous.

As many people do not even bother to download and install a free anti-malware software proves by itself that they will not bother either to do a much more radical step and install Linux.

Even with the best information and awareness about security risks, better Windows operating systems, better anti-malware software, better firewalls, better browsers etc, the Windows OS will not ever be as secure as Linux (or Mac) but it will be “good enough”. That is my point.

I have for the last four years used Windows and I have not had any security problem whatsoever. I only use the Windows firewall, Firefox, Avast and McAfee Siteadvisor (freeware). This is good enough.

Increased security has already happened. The most devastating viruses in above article are quite old. It has gone five years now since the latest and there are more Windows viruses than ever (it has reached about a million by now!) but not any devastating. Despite this fact of more malware than ever, the actual protection and security in the average desktop has actually increased.

The truth is also that Linux does not, by default, offer the same experience as Windows. Even Windows XP has, by default, a much nicer and professional interface than for example Ubuntu has by default.

Linux does not either offer as much software as Windows does. Linux offers actually a lot and is good enough for day to day computing, but if you are going to do something extra you are usually stuck.

Björn Lundahl
Gothenburg, Sweden

You seem quite defensive about your choices. About Windows. Like you need to defend them. You probably don’t want any choice in the first place. People that use Linux do, because we all used Windows at some time and found it lacking for one reason or another.

I do know XP well, I still use it on one system to play games and I don’t agree with you on the speed issue:
Linux is faster and leaner, more efficent. It comes from the modularity and possibility to deactivate everything. That is why it is used on so many devices, much more then windows:
mp3 players, navigation tools (most sold, Tomtom runs Linux), TiVo, are just examples.
Windows is a monolith, ever tried to switch these services that you talk about? Well, I did and Windows becomes defunct pretty fast since everything is interconnected.
Linux you can even run without a graphical frontend, which is impossible with Windows, because it was just not designed for it.
Windows is also getting fatter in each release… ever wondered why Vista runs on not even one Netbook? The newest version of Windows does not run on them because it is too fat and inefficient. Ever tried to run it on a less than lightning fast computer? Yawwwnnnn… people do hate it for a reason, it is a resource hog.

I am writing this here on my 901 eee PC, Ubuntu running on it and the 1 gbyte ram seem to be huge real estate, since Linux IS lean and fast.
You will have to settle for XP, an almost 10 year old ancient Operating system that needs endless installs of drivers that are included from the start in Linux (just setting up Ubuntu, you need to install the kernel, that is the only thing, all other things work without fiddling with CDs or downloading drivers from a million websites.) Webcam, wireless, ethernet, 3d acceleration (compiz shows more effects and runs faster than anything you can have on Vista, go check it out if you care to really know facts)

So I guess it all depends on what you want and you seem to be happy with Windows and happy with all the Microsoft feeds you. Or you seem to be the kind of person that is happy with non working solutions or just complains but does not get the job done.

I hate that dilema, I pride myself (also a professional consultant, with Windows AND Linux/Unix experience) to be able to solve any problem. I guess you would be amazed to find out how powerful bash scripting for example and the command line modularity concept and the ability to automate EVERYTHING is.
If a Microsoft tool or software is crap, (and yes, there are some that make your hairs stand on end), you are stuck and have to happily smile. I like choice, if I don’t like one program, I will have the choice of other 8, that is the advantage to not be tied to a vendor or a proprietary closed standard that serves most the seller and not the user or consultant.

For me Linux has always been about doing more with less, less cost, less restrictions. You say that Windows has no restrictions. I don’t know if we talk about the same Windows, if there is maybe another OS called like that, one that is radically different than the one that I know

The one that I know restricts pretty much everything you do:
Compulsory activation, restrictions for incomming connections (so you cannot use a XP as a server and have to go out to shell out lots of money for a Windows server), restrictions on use as a Terminal Server, reactivation when you reinstall it or change too much hardware (and the possibility that they deny your right to do so)

You pay pretty much for every damn feature you use, which cuts into my productivity, freedom and last but not least my profit margin. Ever wondered why Google is running their huge search machine on Linux servers? They know why, you just get more bang for your buck, efficieny and money wise.

You sound like you have never really used and learned Linux (like you have done with Windows), since some of the stuff you say is just plain simple misinformation. It is very dangerous to talk about what you don’t know.

I would for example never say that Linux is better (or as good) for gaming as Windows. It surely is not.

But if I don’t know something, I wouldn’t talk about it as surely as you do, since you might meet somebody that knows (deactivating services is totally pointless. Go try it and see how much time you safe, it will be totally defunct, BUT not even much faster. The monolith still needs to start up.

What is the fastest boot time I ever saw on a netbook? 22 secons, with the Xandros Linux that Asus instals on the EEE PC (I had it on mine before I installed Ubuntu and timed it, 22 from pushing the button to full readyness)
No Windows can best that, it is just too big. If you don’t believe it, go time an XP, you will see that you end up well beyond 1 minute.
And with readyness I mean: READY, no more trashing of the HD, all stuff loaded and ready for the user.

For all those people who are having trouble installing ubuntu on your netbook:

Ubuntu has released a “special version” (they call it Remix) for Netbooks, its like that eeebuntu but developed for Canonical directly.

Check here to read more:

http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr

——
Windows it’s not the only option! (luckyly for me!)