Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:46 UTC
Linux "For years now, Linux has been a black sheep standing in the shadow of Apple and Microsoft. Despite having a fervent and enthusiastic following, the operating system hasn't been able to grab a sizable share of the computing market and has instead been content to subsist on the customers that come away dissatisfied with the mainstream competition. But that may be about to change. With the release of Microsoft Windows 8 on the horizon, some are saying Linux may have a great opportunity to steal a significant share of the market away from Microsoft, allowing it to finally take the helm as a major operating system service provider." This has to stop, and the only reason I'm linking to this nonsense is to make this very clear: Linux will not magically conquer the desktop or even make any significant gains because of Windows 8. People who don't like Windows 8 (Vista) will continue to use Windows 7 (Windows XP). This is getting so tiring. And does it even matter? Linux is winning big time in the mobile space, server space, and countless other spaces. The desktop is and always has been irrelevant to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 532783
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Bobthearch
by Bobthearch on Tue 28th Aug 2012 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Bobthearch"
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

I'm thinking of upgrading XP to Windows 7. Probably won't do it, just thinking about it. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Bobthearch
by bassbeast on Wed 29th Aug 2012 01:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bobthearch"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

You really should, as its the first upgrade since Win2K to XP X64 where I can point to plenty of specific, concrete, useful improvements and say "That is worth upgrading for", which BTW I can't say about Win 8 because other than the boot "hack" (Look up Win 8 hybrid boot to see why its a hack) there really isn't much to like and metro is a big pile of suck on any large screen.

But comparing XP to 7 you have MUCH better memory management. With XP you can have 4Gb of RAM and still it'll hit the paging file rather than use the RAM, whereas 7 will take that RAM and load your most used programs in a cache, this means that even on my little netbook everything launches instantly thanks to RAM caching. You can actually go 64bit now without the driver hunts like I had to do with XP X64 and with RAM so cheap its a really nice boost to your speed to have that extra RAM.

Jumplists and breadcrumbs mean its incredibly simple to get back to where you were the day before, just right click on the Explorer icon to get your folders back from yesterday and right click on your browser to get your websites back, and with breadcrumbs you can instantly hop from any point you are at in the file system to root in a single click, or jump anywhere in between. I could easily list a half dozen more but those alone make it well worth the $80 upgrade price to HP IMHO, although I don't recommend pro unless you need AD support as you can get most of the same features with third party freeware and save the extra dough.

As for Linux...sigh. See my other post and read the links I provided. There are some serious issues with the fundamental way Linux is designed that is gonna have to be changed to make it ready for the masses, but like any large org trying to get everyone to change the way they do things is gonna be difficult and take years, if it ever changes. Linux was supposed to gain when Vista bombed, instead people went to XP, and in the case of 8 people will just stay with 7. In the end Linux is too much work for too little reward, especially when you can pick up a Win 7 family pack for $120, because at $30 a license all it takes is one PITA issue to make it more costly of my time than Windows costs my wallet.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Bobthearch
by Bobthearch on Wed 29th Aug 2012 03:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bobthearch"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I agree with all of that; I just happen to be a procrastinator when deciding to upgrade something that works perfectly well as-is. On one hand it's a behavior that leaves me a little behind the tech times. On the other hand it saves me a lot of money. ;)

And quite frankly computers don't need upgrading as often as they did a few years ago. Not only have the hardware requirements for software and the internet stagnated, computers seem to last longer. My primary computer is six years old this month (Core 2 Duo) and still runs like new.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Bobthearch
by zima on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 05:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bobthearch"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

its the first upgrade since Win2K to XP X64 where I can point to plenty of specific, concrete, useful improvements and say "That is worth upgrading for"
[...]
You can actually go 64bit now without the driver hunts like I had to do with XP X64

But the only thing making 2k->XP64 worth it (if you considered XP32 not worth it) was 3-4 GiB of RAM or more - hardly "plenty of [...] improvements" & a fairly rare scenario back then. Oh yeah, and it brought those driver pitfalls...

Reply Parent Score: 2