OSNews

Because not every application one might need is available under Linux?

For example, I like Linux a lot but it does not support the ACPI controler on my motherboard, so no Linux for me.

On top of that, many SDKs that I use are Windows only, again no luck with Linux.

And I don't see the point of installing Linux and then spending 90% of the time slowly using Windows inside a VM.

Currently my Linux usage is limited to the server side.

Will you buy a motherboard whose ACPI controller is not supported by windows?
don't cheat linux

Edited 2009-05-05 09:55 UTC

What you actually mean is that the ACPI controler on your motherboard is not compliant with the ACPI specification, i.e. non-standard, and hence doesn't support Linux.

Edited 2009-05-05 10:51 UTC

Sorry, but for me it is not very smart to buy an expensive new windows incompatible with your legacy windows applications to run them using a XP virtualized...

Or you stay with Windows XP forever or you can use NOW linux as desktop and run your legacy applications on a virtual machine with XP inside. There are many free virtualization solutions like virtualbox, vmare server and player, etc.

Well, not screaming fast like against a bare metal gaming rig but a Linux OS hosted VMware runs a WinXP guest very nicely. Expanded to full screen, you won't realize you where on a VM unless you needed some specific bit of hardware not supported (3D GPU mostly). This is the same reason it's well suited to servers; different resource management.

By contrast, the same VM image run under a Windows host OS feels like I'm working through remote desktop on a sub-par network connection. VM hosting is just not what Windows is best used for though it has other advantages (runs my Cain real nice though ).

I'm on the other side of it, I'm 90% of my time in Mandriva or Debian. It's not uncommon for me to boot a Windows or Debian VM under my Mandriva host OS when needing something specific to each. At home, my workstation always has a light Debian VM doing my in house mail server and IDS; it's unnoticeable in the background. I often open a WinXP VM at home to test leaky protocols using Cain too though. It just depends on which platform provides most of your needs and which is the secondary for specific needs.

Really, I'm only butting in because I think you'd find a Windows VM runs very nicely under a Linux OS hosted VMware deamon. That doesn't change the fact that you'd be spending 90% of your time working inside a VM though so it still depends on what platform covers your needs best.

Umm .. not every application is available under Linux????

You're right. Only half-baked, worthless, buggy, open-sores applications are available under Linux.

The rest of them are available for Windows or Mac OS X.

On some boards if you have overclocking features enabled it will give a complaint message about acpi in linux.
Set it to standard non overclocking solves it probably

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his company, like the local government I work for, is fully dependent on at least one legacy Windows app. That would explain why they haven't previously converted to Linux or even Vista. With the virtualized XP compatibility freely available to the top tier customers, switching to 7 is a real possibility for a lot of companies and organizations. While it is possible to run a virtualized Windows environment under Linux or BSD, it's difficult to manage and not supported at all by Microsoft. With 7 you have official support.



You are right, Vista came nowhere close to living up to the hype. From what I've seen of the Windows 7 Beta though, it's what Vista should have been and much more. I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch of the imagination; all the computers in my house run either Mac OS or Linux with the exception of a ten year old laptop with Win2k, which the kids use for schoolwork that requires Windows. But I've tried the 7 Beta on my Mac mini and it really blew me away. Based on their previous track record, I was amazed to see such a great OS come out of Redmond. It's still not quite there, and has a little further to go to match OS X, but in my opinion Windows finally has enough stability, security and usability to keep up with Linux on the desktop and workstation.

While it is possible to run a virtualized Windows environment under Linux or BSD, it's difficult to manage and not supported at all by Microsoft.

Running virtualized Windows in Linux is very, very easy with VMware. Also, I'd take VMware support over Microsoft support any day.

That said, use whatever works best for you. A VMware license isn't exactly cheap (although it's useful for a lot more than running one legacy app), and price is one of the main advantages of Linux.

Why switch to a new OS for that one legacy windows application? That seems to me as very risky.

You can thank IBM for that. As we are IBM partners, our sales team needs to download updates for their IBM product database several times a day. This database (it's basically a tool with an indexed flat file backend) runs only on windows. I've tried getting it to run under wine but it's just so unused by the rest of the world that getting support for it is very hard.

Many in our tech teams runs Linux and are very happy with it. I myself don't see the point at the moment as the administration tools I use don't all have Linux counterparts and I'd rather run my software natively.

Is there any guarantee that this application will work under Windows 7?

Why not go for Linux? Remember that Vista was marketed as the best thing ever, so please keep away from the hype.

Yeah well, on the other hand you guys keep "marketing" Linux as a "best thing ever" which clearly, it is not - far from it - on the desktop. Now, you said something about keeping away from the hype?

A lot of the reasons why Windows has been getting better is that they've been implementing things that were present earlier ( sometimes much earlier ) in Unix.

The free Unices do make for pretty good desktops, but that depends on what your definition of a desktop is.

What a childish attitude to have; do you instantly dismiss something because many years ago they released a bad product? Here comes another car analogy! its funny how Japan and Korean when they first started to make cars there was much deriding by those in the US about the cars. Look at the situation 30 years later.

Windows Vista was a flawed product but should you then turn around say, "well, because they released a flawed product - all their products past and future are crap"? of course not! even as rabid Mac fanboy I accept that Microsoft has really listened to the complaints and improved Windows.

Windows 7 is going to benefit all concerned even if you don't use Windows yourself - although I'll keep with the Mac, Windows 7 is the first version of Windows that I've seen where I can say with a strong and sturdy voice that if you want a PC, Windows 7 is a great piece of software.

"do you instantly dismiss something because many years ago they released a bad product"

I wouldn't be knocking Win7 as it's too early still to have enough experience with it (happily got my RC trial install today). However "many years ago they released a bad product":

- Dos 6.1 drive compression leading to Dos 6.11 "fix"
- Bob
- WinME
- Vista ("years ago" being within the last 12 months)
- IE (jury pending on V8, V7 and V6 not as advertised)

I wouldn't say it's "a bad product" but 'a history of bad products' mostly surviving through innovative business strategies.

This still being separate from Win7 until such time as it earns it's own reputation. In that regard, I agree that Win7 should not be prematurely tarred with the Bob and Vista brushes.

I agree. We all remember Window Me. Than Windows XP came out. Even though I prefer Ubuntu or any Linux distro to Windows for most of my daily tasks. I still dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu, mainly for certain games, astronomy apps, and photo-editing/video-editing software. Microsoft is trying their best to put out a way better product than Vista. They heard the gripes!. So now, hopefully, Windows 7 will be a better product than Windows Vista. The big question will be "price", which we haven't heard yet. We may all be surprised, it could be cheaper. Both operating systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

Yeah, everyone knows that it's your moral duty to always use Linux for everything, everywhere. Otherwise, you're evil, immoral, and (worst of all) the GNU/Freetards will accuse you of being on Microsoft's payroll.

haha nice post

...because Linux as a desktop replacement in the corporate world is a pipe dream. It will never happen. Ever. Just like X-Serve in the datacenter is also an exercise in futility.