Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It uses shared system memory to emulate the graphics, and you cant run one with more than half your installed ram because you need it to run windows.. taking up resources.

You can, I just did ran a virtual Windows 2008 machine with 2 GB on my 3 GB computer.

But it's true that virtualization is never the same thing as a real dedicated computer.

Originally posted by Hefficide
This is one of the reasons that I have held onto my XP for so long now. As a person who started on on computers before GUI's even existed - and who has suffered through the Win based nightmares, one after the other. I am very hesitant to abandon what I know to be a stable build and one that I can effectively manipulate to my own tastes.

I've been told Win 7 is as stable as XP but still get almost paranoid thinking about making a move.

Currently I have more than two operating systems existing on unique partitions on this machine. Win XP, a Linux based security auditing build, and my Linux flavor the week, Ubuntu. I tend to move back and forth between the Linux builds as new ones become available. That is one of the things I love about Linux - the vast selection of different versions to try out. They are always evolving and there is almost always a new option to check out and test drive.

That, IMO, is what makes Microsoft feel so threatened by Linux and is probably one of the reasons they are quietly seeking to make using Linux too complicated for the average PC user. For a long time they didn't have to worry as Linux was only for power users. But now? Now many smart phone and tablet users could download Ubuntu onto their PC's and realize that they're already familiar with the interface and software.

Microsoft has never been very good at hiding their monopolistic intentions. Just Google "Netscape" to see how brazen they can be when they want to.

Great thread. S&F.

~Heff

edit on 2/18/13 by Hefficide because: grammar

I've been using Windows 7 for a couple years, and it's pretty stable. I've had blue screens with Windows 7 before though, but that was because of a hardware problem, rather than a software problem. My computer also pretty much runs all day. From the time I wake up to the time I go to bed. Which can be 14 hours of total run time. I also tend to put it in sleep too.

Can't this Secure boot be disabled? I don't have a UEFI BIOS, but I would imagine it being able to be disabled.

Originally posted by Hefficide
By way of contrast - my Ubuntu interface has been up ( though in sleep mode several times ) for about the past three days without a hiccup.

Bot my home computer and the one I use at work are never shut down, my home computer is sent to sleep when I'm going to sleep and I wake it up when I wake up, I only restart it whenever an update ask for it.

My home computer was updated to Windows 8 yesterday.

I was surfing Distrowatch last night, BTW ( for the OP and all ) and noticed that several new flavors of Linux are coming out with built in ways of defeating the issue presented in the OP already.

Defeat what?

OS is not always a choice dictated by the user's attitude or philosophical views about operating systems.

Sometimes it's dictated by NEEDS - things the user just needs to be able to do with the minimum hassle. I mean, why choose extra hassle and have worse quality output, if you can get better quality output with less hassle? It's like buying a fast car, and then choosing things that hinder and slow it down a lot, and which can't be controlled intuitively and easily, but require all kinds of manipulation of text files and when you want to install an ashtray or a music player, you have to know cryptic commands and their attributes, instead of just putting it in place and turning it on, like a normal human being would expect to do.

Linux may be nice, stable and efficient in many ways, but usually linux-freaks are either wilfully blind/ignorant about it's problems and limitations, and boast it's omnipotential even when it's clear that it simply cannot do all the things Windows XP easily does, for example. If Linux is optimal for YOUR needs, that's fine and good, no arguments from me.

But if a Linux-freak with small needs starts preaching the superiority of Linux to people with much more complicated, specific, and/or larger needs, they are soon blinded by their own ignorance. While foaming at the mouth, soon these people and their preachings start sounding more and more ludicrous. I never understood diehard Linux-freaks - I can admit the good points about Linux, but I also see the bad points (and I also speak from experience, for I am interested in using many kinds of operating systems, because there really isn't a good one on this planet anymore - AmigaOS was as close as it ever got to 'the optimal' or 'the ultimate' operating system that had the strengths (like customization, speed, freedom and intuitivity (if there is such a word)) of a good OS, while still not completely giving in to the Linux-like over-complexity and tediousness of it's configuration files) of it.

I also see the good points of Windows, as much as the Linux-freaks love to forget them or play them down.

When you have very specific needs, chances are that Linux just can't do your bidding. I mean, 'specialized' needs that utilize some program that exists only for Windows. Maybe in some rare cases you can use Wine or something like it to make it work, but in others, it would never work that way.

I have many such 'needs' (well, if we are really accurate, no one NEEDS to even have or use a computer - we don't immediately drop dead if our net connection breaks down or our computer breaks down - (most) human beings on physical level need food, shelter, defacation/urination opportunities, sleep, and some sort of protective garments - but discussion would sometimes be almost impossible if we always stopped to take into account every little thing (as much as I would actually like that), so I plan to continue using the word 'need' in this context, just to make a point) that no other OS could fulfill.

Also, I know that this is not supposed to be said - but in ATS there are a lot of things like that, so why should this be any different. The Linux versions of some - or even many - things are simply inferior and harder to configure, customize to your liking, to use, to install, and so on. With Linux, you -always- have to know way more than a user should have to, every step of the way. From installation scripts that might not work properly with your particular distro or whatever, to configuring the software using a text editor instead of intuitive menus and buttons.

Even when you get something working, and configured as much to your liking as possible with the Linux version(s) and by utilizing the text editor method of configuring things - it's possible that the Linux version STILL doesn't perform as well or give you all the options the Windows version does.

With Windows, downloading, installing and configuring software is usually like: 1) Download 2) Double click to extract - choose destination with mouse 3) Double click to launch the setup executable or the program itself 4) Click Next a couple of times, and "Browse" once to determine where you want it installed 5) Double click on the exe to launch the program.

With Linux... even with Ubuntu, it's not usually that easy. Why would anyone willingly want to complicate this handy and easy procedure? Just to be able to claim they use the 'cool' OS? Just because of irrational fear of Windows?

I know Windows is still sub-par, and always has been. But the thing is, everything else is even worse, at least for someone with very specialized / specific / large needs that Linux simply can't fulfill, and even when it can, it can do it poorly, with a lot more hassle, without all the options and support of it's Windows counterpart, and only when you have acquired a huge amount of otherwise useless knowledge.

I don't even want to mention MacOS.. is has bad sides from both worlds. Without freedom.

This darn word limit always gets me.

I meant to also elaborate a bit on my original point - the core of it was probably that there are many ways to choose an OS.

There's the "trendy not-so-knowledgeable" people who easily fall for Apple's marketing campaigns - they get everything they deserve.

There's the Windows-fanatics, who don't necessarily do much with their computer, and who could just as well use a Linux, but who foam at the mouth for ideological, territorial or other such egotistical reasons (why do computer flame wars even exist in the first place? There HAS to be some stupidity and some weird ego stuff involved - mere rational facts would never flame each other the way people do).

Then there's the Linux-freaks, who are just as fanatic, but perhaps know more about computers, love tweaking things, and challenges. Their needs are tiny, so Linux can fulfill them perfectly. They can't understand why anyone would use Windows, because FOR THEM, Linux is a dream. They don't usually try to rationally look at the issue and see that Windows actually does perform things that Linux can't, and does it usually with 1% of the hassle that's often absolutely -required- by Linux. They fail to see that with Windows, you almost always get an answer to any problem, and it's relatively easy to solve, compared to the smaller Linux-base, where you can encounter really weird, quirky problems that you would have to learn 10 years of programming to begin to solve (to exaggarate slightly). They also act from emotions/ego/rage/whatever - irrationality in any case.

Then there are the pragmatics, who cannot understand why people would flame so much about computers or operating systems - they think that by laying the facts on the table, everyone should be convinced. But for some odd and mysterious reason, no one ever is. They choose their operating system by pragmatic reasons, instead of idealistic or philosophical ones. They usually get the most work done, and they just use their system happily ever after, and upgrade/change it if it's ever needed, without having a huge emotional ritual about it.

There are probably some other categories as well, but the thing is, for a lot of people, the OS wars are somehow EMOTIONAL and EGO-BASED - so they cannot do the pragmatic and rational thing and simply use - and let other people use - whatever system works the best for them. They want everyone ELSE to also feel that their treasured OS is the best, or they get angry.

I admit sometimes having belonged at least partially to perhaps more than one group, but in the end, I want to make the rational choice. I am interested in MacOS X although many of it's limitations would bug me to no end in the long run, and although I used to have and use a Mac everyday, at home and at work.

I have also used Linux, and have tried to do everything I easily do with Windows, with the Linux as well. I had more or less success, but it felt like having conquered mount everest twice in a month - just to do what's so easy and handy to do in Windows. I learned a lot from that experience, and I had to learn a heckuva lot just to be able to do all that.

I have installed BeOS into my computers in the past, and if it was a 'full-fledged OS' that would have enough support, I would probably still use it a lot. It's a fun OS to use - but I just couldn't DO very much with it.

I used AmigaOS with real Amigas back in the day - I expanded my Amiga hardware as much as I could without getting PPC stuff or other weird, 'modern' things mixed in with the good old Amiga hardware. I know that even this point is probably still being debated - what's "real Amiga hardware" and what's "just PC hardware in a supposed Amiga", but I won't get into that now.

My point is that I would actually LOVE to use something other than Windows, and I am very open to that possibility. I have no ideological investment about this at all - I actually even hate the Windows a little bit, and am sometimes irritated by it's consistent design faults and other user-unfriendly or just unlikable things. I miss certain things that AmigaOS had, but Windows never did, or has much worse versions of (like certain file requesters, the 'feel', and a lot of other small stuff).

But it's the pragmatic reasons that force me to sigh and admit to myself (and others): Windows is still the only choice for me. It's the only one that does everything I "need" it to do, in the way I want it to be done, with the minimum hassle and maximum user-friendliness, all things considered. I mean, what good is a user-friendly OS, if you can't do anything much with it?

With good tools, like Total Commander (which doesn't exist for MacOS X, btw! And nothing like does, afaik) and PowerPro - although not as good as "Filer" (Amiga) and Toolmanager (Amiga), make using Windows pretty comfortable and flexible, and whenever I want to do something new, I know a program exists for it. (Would write more, but 15 chars left)

Originally posted by Shoujikina
There's the Windows-fanatics, who don't necessarily do much with their computer, and who could just as well use a Linux, but who foam at the mouth for ideological, territorial or other such egotistical reasons (why do computer flame wars even exist in the first place?

One thing I always found funny was the number of Bill Gates lookalikes present on Microsoft events, specially in those more targeted at a general computing crowd, like the Windows 2000 launch.

It's amazing how some people prefer not to have a real personality just to emulate someone else's, at least in looks.

Then there's the Linux-freaks, who are just as fanatic, but perhaps know more about computers, love tweaking things, and challenges.

Some years ago I had a discussion with one of those in a newsgroup. For him, Linux was the best thing ever created, and Windows couldn't do a thing. The problem is that he was basing all his opinions based on Windows 95, he didn't know a thing about NTFS, for example.

In the end, an operating system is just a tool; some are better suited for some work, some for a different type of work.