Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:05 UTC, submitted by Luis
Linux Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista 'costs too much', 'has onerous product activation', 'requires too much hardware', etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: 'I'm just going to switch to Linux'. But in today's landscape, how viable is that statment? Is the threat to switch to Linux an empty one, or is it entirely possible?"
Thread beginning with comment 219311
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: 64bit
by anda_skoa on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:49 UTC in reply to "64bit"
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

With both Mac OS X and Vista in 64-bit versions, Linux can no longer lag behind if it expects to be taken seriously.

I haven't read the article yet, but if they really complain about 64-bit Linux "lagging behind" they probably should check a resource about computing history, because Linux has been supporting more 64-bit architectures than Windows and OS X together for years.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: 64bit
by HappyGod on Thu 8th Mar 2007 04:41 in reply to "RE: 64bit"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

It's not just the lack of a 64-bit option, but the default Gnome theme now looks really old.

The windows are kind of OK, but the mouse-grey task-bar and Gnome-bar are very Windows 95.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: 64bit
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:14 in reply to "RE[2]: 64bit"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's a rather old version then. Newer Gnome versions come with the Clearlooks theme and Tango icons. And it makes a hell of a difference.

But yeah, older Gnome 2.x versions looked pretty dated. No doubt.

OTOH many socalled "modern-looking" desktops are horrible to look at.

Clearlooks2-Squared + Clearlooks-Quicksilver + Tango icons give a pretty sweet desktop. A bit to bright perhaps, but I can live with it.

Reply Parent Score: 3