Windows problems! STOP recommending Linux

gaming_guy

I recommend that you try Ubuntu

But i can understand whey people might not want to use linux because of things like program compatibility and that they might not be familiar with the various window managers on offer.

Another thing is that it can be difficult to install stuff for beginners when something like gdebi/synaptic package manager isnt installed.

Oneday77

kabayiri wrote: »

Says who, you?

Yeah, right.

I think I'll listen to Mr Torvalds about what Linux is about, thank you very much.

Ask yourself a simple question. What gives you the right to dictate anything on here? Answer : nothing.

Where did I dictate anything? I didn't take over the world and say you must do this.
My point, as some people have put across better than my OP, is that when people have a small windows problem, too many people suggest ditch windows go with Linux(or any derivative of it). Whilst in a tongue in cheek way it can be a good jibe to the right people. However it is a pointless comment if the person posting the problem starts of with the line: -
Help me I am completely clueless my PC is doing ....... What do I do?
As far as people new to computer ownership goes I have no issues with Linux or anyother OS. As I stated before it is when you suggest that people switch from what they know confusion sets in.
I have found Alienerik is very patient and helps guide the clueless through problems whilst sticking to windows based solutions
I like to be honest with myself and others. Yes I have only ever had a brief play with Linux, I didn't like it and I have been using windows from 95 onwards. I don't have a problem with people mixing it up if they choose to. I may even try it myself again soon. Need to upgrade to Win 7 so may go with dual boot, again my choice.
Now do you see my point? I am not saying don't give people the choice, just use more pertinent posts to promote Linux: - I fancy a Netbook, never owned or used a computer which one do I buy, the Acer with Windows or Linux would be a good example.
I hate paying full price for anything, I see the benefits of Opensource, play fair with it though.
Leopard thanks for the support, glad to see I am appreciated
If I have not responded to anyones comments don't take it personally I have just tried to generalise.

Oneday77

isofa wrote: »

I'm not interested especially in the operating system, as long as it is: secure, stable, allows key tasks to function smoothly and without problem, can address the resources required for the task, and it's unobtrusive.

I'm interested in applications. And as kabayiri mentions, other less technical users are just interested in the "appliance" factor, they want a machine to browse the web, look at photos from their camera and email people. They may have little interest in the OS on their system.

I don't buy a computer to sit all day and move files from drive to drive and open and close folders. I buy a computer to create media, design, browse the web, support my clients, design software and a multitude of other applications.

Therefore I choose my applications and then decide which platform suits them best, in some cases OS X can run these better and provide and more seamless experience than Windows (certainly for creative work) and in other cases, Windows provides better tools (especially when I'm designing software) and often for general office work. I own a laptop and desktop of both and work with offices of both platforms.



It is? Goodness how did I manage to spend the many thousands of pounds on software I have for OS X then? Where did all that cutting edge Adobe, Logic, PhaseOne, Microsoft and other software come from? What about novice home users creating photo albums in iPhoto or high quality movies/DVDs with iMovie/iDVD? It's this sort of lack of knowledge and comment that is as bad as people giving bad advice as robt mentions.

Much software is cross platform, some is Windows only, some is Mac OS only.

I day say in a post that Macs have a great dedicated purpose for design, media, video & they do it very well. You will find that most cross platform software was initially designed for windows first then amended for Mac use. Or did Microsoft suddenly start switching sides? All i(software) is Mac-porse written.
On the subject of you spending thousands of pounds, that is more due to the limited competition to the software packages on Macs.

Leopard

kabayiri wrote: »

Says who, you?

Yeah, right.

I think I'll listen to Mr Torvalds about what Linux is about, thank you very much.

Ask yourself a simple question. What gives you the right to dictate anything on here? Answer : nothing.

kabayiri,

It's a simple tactic.

You write something provocative in order to get people to debate the issue it raises.

And from debates, people learn things.

If, instead, you write something bland, nobody bothers and everybody then misses out.

And, if you didn't go around with your head up your penguin but instead bought yourself a newspaper and read it, you'd understand that.



davester,

davester wrote: »

At the end of the day Macs lose out because they are too expensive, why pay £700 for a Mac to surf the net and type your emails, when you can do the same for £200 and get a PC.

Because when somebody earns several hundred pounds an hour (not rare among the professions, especially in London) they don't want, and can't afford, just for the sake of a mere £500, to spend time fighting a daily battle against malware, and sending pages of "HiJack This" to MSE and awaiting help from :A aliEnRIK :A before they can get on with their work.

Quite apart from the hassle, saving £500 at a cost of £1,000 in lost earnings isn't money saving. Nor is it sound economic sense.

(And if you don't like the truthful answer, don't ask the question. )

almillar

Oneday77, you give the impression that Macs are only found in design studios. That sounds way out of date, and they are on fact compatible with the whole of the internet too! And Microsoft also launched Office on the Mac before they launched it in Windows. Hey, if you ever do find something that a Windows PC can do that a Mac can't, you can just install Windows on the Mac as well!
Anyway on the original point, if someone comes on with a simple problem with their Windows PC, they may be able to (for example) try out a different browser (5 min to download and install) but downloading, burning 'Linux' (or rather one of the 100's of distros) and installing it is gonna be way beyond them, never mind if they did get that far, only to wonder why AVG won't install on it...

BillScarab

Leopard wrote: »

Because when somebody earns several hundred pounds an hour (not rare among the professions, especially in London) they don't want, and can't afford, just for the sake of a mere £500, to spend time fighting a daily battle against malware, and sending pages of "HiJack This" to MSE and awaiting help from :A aliEnRIK :A before they can get on with their work.

Quite apart from the hassle, saving £500 at a cost of £1,000 in lost earnings isn't money saving. Nor is it sound economic sense.

(And if you don't like the truthful answer, don't ask the question. )

Come on Leopard do you really believe people fight a daily battle against Malware? I can't remember the last time I had any sort of Malware on my machine.

Today was the first time I've bothered scanning my machine in months and that's only because a website I use has been compromised.

If you've half a brain and don't open every random email attachment and download rubbish the chances of having a problem are low, especially if you're behind a firewall.

There are far more people who don't earn several hundred pounds an hour and for many of them a cheap £300 laptop is a good solution.

Leopard

BillScarab wrote: »

Come on Leopard do you really believe people fight a daily battle against Malware? I can't remember the last time I had any sort of Malware on my machine.

Today was the first time I've bothered scanning my machine in months and that's only because a website I use has been compromised.

If you've half a brain and don't open every random email attachment and download rubbish the chances of having a problem are low, especially if you're behind a firewall.

One only has to look at the index page of this sub-forum to see how many people lose that battle every day. And whilst admittedly a lot of them don't appear, from their postings, to have a very large brain to halve, by no means are all of them fools.

There are far more people who don't earn several hundred pounds an hour and for many of them a cheap £300 laptop is a good solution.

I never said it wasn't. There is clearly no shortage of people who would rather spend their time making tens of thousands of semi-literate postings on MSE than spend it earning the money to buy a laptop that is pretty much immune to malware (or, sadly, even on learning how to construct a sentence in coherent English).

But, with respect, that is not the point. davester posed a direct question and I gave him a direct answer to it.

Neither his question nor my answer invoked the limitations imposed by poverty. They were narrowly confined to a single issue.



But where is asininity??

If ever there was thread that played to his favourite topic it is this one.

And he's missing it.

Is he engaged in another marathon disputation with Marty J, somewhere else?

He'll be kicking himself when he does find this one.

What a lost opportunity!

BillScarab

Yes, most days several people post that they are having problems. But then what percentage of the people who are members of this site and use windows is that? A tiny percentage.

You didn't reply to davester, you gave a politicans answer by answering the question you wanted to rather than the one he asked.

If all you want to do is surf the net and use email why buy a Mac? A cheaper Windows machine will do the job as will a Linux Machine and a Linux machine is just as safe from malware as a Mac.

Now if you can afford the cost of a Mac and you want one fair enough, go ahead and buy one. However many people can't either afford a Mac or can't justify the expense.

isofa

Oneday77 wrote: »

You will find that most cross platform software was initially designed for windows first then amended for Mac use. Or did Microsoft suddenly start switching sides? All i(software) is Mac-porse written.

Really? This is completely incorrect.

I suspect you've not been using computers for as long as I, nor do you know your subject well enough. I suggest you do some research before posting mis-information.

Just a few examples I know without any research: Excel, was designed and written for Macs only by Microsoft in the mid-1980s, I know this because I had it running on a Mac Plus, and they didn't "port" it for Windows until much later in the 1980s, I'm sure the history will be hidden on the MS website somewhere.

PageMaker this most ground breaking DTP and killer app of the 1980s, released by Aldus, first on the Mac at the same time as Excel, then ported to the PC much later. This app revolutionised the desktop publishing revolution, and is the basis of cross platform apps such as Adobe In Design today. (Adobe bought out Aldus.)

Microsoft had a DOS version of Word running in the 1980s (I remember, I had Word in DOS, it was a dog putting in formatting characters), but released the first GUI version on the Mac in 1980s, writing it for Windows much later.

Photoshop, widely regarded as the most important photo editing application by professionals, was developed by Thomas Knoll in the late 1980s for... oh you've guessed it, the Mac... Adobe bought into it and v1 as released in 1990 for Mac only (no PC versions appeared until much later). I started using Photoshop from v2, and it's an app I use every single day.

FileMaker a very mature and powerful database, Mac first, PC much later in the 1990s, and if you want to dismiss FM as a non-serious business, I can point you to several multi-million pound businesses relying on it. To be fair early versions were written by Apple's then software company Claris, but it is now a totally separate and independent company.

Oneday77 wrote: »

On the subject of you spending thousands of pounds, that is more due to the limited competition to the software packages on Macs.

Incorrect once again. Adobe CS3 and now CS4 is the same price on both platforms.

MS Office is pretty much the same price 2007 on PC, 2008 on Mac. Student and Home editions are available just as they are on Windows.

etc.

Mac software is not more expensive than PC software. I've developer kits on Windows which cost a lot more than software I have on the Mac.

I have all major software packages on both platforms, hence my enormous spending, but then I'm a professional user and developer.

jaydeeuk1

I love the way this thread has gone in to melt down, with geeks spitting Mountain Dew all over their keyboard now.

For that, OP, you have my utmost respect.