Just curious, how often to you format your PC, due to your Windows getting all messed up? Most often due to a virus... I usually have to format 2 times a year for sure and it is always a pain in every possible body part
Printable View
Just curious, how often to you format your PC, due to your Windows getting all messed up? Most often due to a virus... I usually have to format 2 times a year for sure and it is always a pain in every possible body part
An image of my whole windows partition after all updates have been installed is more then enough for me... I keep the first image on 3 different media.
Then every week I have a rotation scheme that allows me to backup the windows partition as well but in a different location. Needless to say whenever something goes wrong really bad and I need to have the latest version I just take an image of the rotation scheme and install that one (if its really urgent).
Else I just take the original image,install it (and of course update it with the latest windows updates before replacing this image again).
My average swapping rate is around once a year - after I installed the original image again it feels the same as a format, everything goes somewhat faster again, but thats about the only difference....
0 :). I use Linux.Quote:
how often to you format your PC, due to your Windows getting all messed up
When I used Windows a few years ago, it was something like once every month. I ended up memorizing the serial number.
Running XP I rarely have problems. Usually once or twice a year, but generally as a result of some crap program, not windows itself. One of the more common problems I run into is registry corruption due to either malformed entries or bloated entries, i.e. programs that use the registry for their own personal scratch pad and of course dont delete the entries when they are uninstalled.
I used to do it about twice a year and it made me mad every time I had to do it.
So I bought a Mac.
About once a year, but I don't use it that often. The most recent was a virus that came through Firefox... so much for secure eh? Before I used FF, and I used IE6 probably about 5 times a year. But I don't use Windows much these days.
Never actually. I keep my Win very tidy and clean. :)
Never done it in XP. System is stable and fast. Malware fails to beat me (I've had about 2-3 in the last 3 years). ;)
My last windows XP installation remained stable for 3 full years without the need to format and reinstall.
Since I keep the same usage practices with this new machine I expect a similar performance.
That is the recipe for a flame war =).Quote:
there are no other operating systems that can fulfill compatibility, eye-candy and usability, I am still sticking with Windows.
To start it off,
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...z&search_type=
All the effects are configurable, of course, including the theme, unlike Aero. Oh, and it only requires onboard video, too.
Usability... you will have to define that. Of course Linux is as unusable to someone that has never used Linux as Windows is to someone who has never used Windows.
Compatibility with Windows programs... well, better than Windows' compatibility with Linux programs :). On a more serious note, many programs have open source equivalents (in terms of functionality), eg. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, a few open source IM clients, GCC + the GNU toolchain. Most of the popular commercial Windows programs can run under wine (an open-source implementation of Windows API on Linux).
As for advantages -
Open source and free (both in terms of beer and speech)
Security - no worrying about virii and malware. Before people say it's because Linux is not as widely used, no, it's because of the user priviledge system (and Microsoft made a step in the right direction with Vista's UAC, but unfortunately many people perceive it as an annoying feature and disable it. I have never used it myself, so I won't comment on that. The idea is good, though, but it has existed in UNIX/Linux for more than a few decades already. I would imagine the introduction of UAC breaks some applications, too, since many programs assume they have admin access, and do things like writing to "Program Files", and they were right, until Vista). Being open source makes Linux more secure, too, in the sense of actual vulnerabilities/bugs (as opposed, for example, users executing a malware with admin access voluntarily). Linux also includes a sophisticated firewall (part of it in the kernel, part of it userspace). A lot more sophisticated and configurable than the one included in Windows.
Stability - admittedly not the GUI part. Linux is still in the transition from server to desktop, and crashes still happen once every few days, just like Windows (which of course has improved since the win98 days, too). The lower level parts are good, though (kernel + command line). For example, my server (http + ftp + smtp + imap + printing + samba, on 3 harddrives in software RAID) running Linux has been up for a few months now (it was rebooted last time because of an extended blackout), and has never given me any trouble. Sure, for a more mission-critical server it's probably a good idea to update periodically, but for a relatively low importance server like mine, everything on default is good enough.
"natural" - it just "makes more sense", perhaps because it is actually designed by users. For example, the update script won't restart the computer automatically after installing updates (sure, you can probably change that, but why have it as the default!?!?). It also makes me wonder how much better Windows would be if Microsoft spent all the effort on fighting piracy with all those annoying "features" on actually improving Windows. Perhaps they have figured that they make more money doing those things than improving the software since Windows is the only choice for the average Joe (which constitutes most of the population), and they have to buy it anyways. I know this is largely subjective, but the overall atmosphere is a lot less "commercialized" in the Linux world, which I find attractive. It feels like the good old days when people mutually share their programs open sourced and get excited when other people use them. That kind of relationships between developers and users are, I think, far more enjoyable than between, say, an average Joe and Microsoft. I have contacted a few open source developers about their programs, and most of the replies I got are very helpful and enthusiastic. Some even implemented features just because I suggested them. They are actually enthusiastic about their programs. It's the kind of enthusiasm we won't find in, for example, a support email from Microsoft.
Productivity - powerful command line tools allow easy automation of many tasks like differential backup, file management (eg. delete files that are older than xyz, with a .txt extension, and with a length that is an odd number), batch image manipulation, and what I have actually done - a script that parses the National Geographic site and download the "picture of the day", remove the black banner, scale it, and set it as my wallpaper. All in a few lines, leveraging the power of wget, a command line file downloader, grep, a utility that searches a file for specific tokens, ImageMagick, a command line image processing program, and the command line interface of my desktop manager (GNOME). Sure, for average Joes this kind of things aren't important, but for computer literate people (people who aren't afraid of learning new things), this is quite priceless.
Both OSes have their pros and cons, and there is nothing wrong with using both of them at the same time, each for their strong points. For me, I use Windows for gaming and entertainment. For any serious work I trust it to Linux.
To quote Master5001, "I fell asleep half way through your post". :)
The problem with UNIX is that to do all those wonderful things you talk about, you need to be an expert and have tons of experience (and a good memory) with all those commands.
I'm a software developer, not an IT sys admin. I want to spend more time programming and less time looking through man pages & learning every little detail about the OS. I also don't like typing incredibly long commands piped to other commands piped to other commands, then doing it again a few more times fixing little typos I made before...
As for formatting Windows, I only do it when I buy a new computer every 3-5 years. After that the first thing I install is Symantec Antivirus. My computer has never had a virus in my life, and I haven't seen a blue screen of death since before Win 2000. I don't know what you guys are doing to your poor computers, but maybe you should apply to Microsoft's QA department! ;)
Does one need to know all about Windows to be able to use it effectively?
What makes you think one needs to know all about UNIX to use it effectively?
Good memory is not necessary, too. "[command] --help" will usually give a list of parameters with short descriptions. Commonly used commands will be memorized automatically (how can you not remember "ls" if you are typing it 100 times / day?).
I don't think UNIX users intentionally memorize commands and such (well... maybe some do. I certainly don't, and I am still able to use it effectively and efficiently).
It may be just me but *nix flavors do have window managers. This implies that using *nix is not all about the command-line.
I'm pretty sure I could use the internet, write papers, listen to music and watch DVDs with a *nix setup. That's what 90% of my day is about. I haven't moved completely to *nix yet (not that it seems appealing to me atm) because of college, and I'm too lazy to dual boot this machine. That's it.
In response to the OP restoring at checkpoints is all I ever do if I encounter a serious problem. I just did this recently.
Well you don't need to know everything just to use UNIX, but to do things quickly without spending way too much time reading man pages, you need to memorize a lot of things.
My desktop at work is Linux, and I can get by pretty well, although sometimes I find myself spending a lot more time looking at man pages than I'd like to.
The thing is - I've noticed that even though we have things like Eclipse and other GUI tools available, a lot of the UNIX people still like doing all their work on the command line. I painfully watched one girl slowly changing directories, copy & pasting file & directory names together, stumbling through vi... when I could have done the same thing in Eclipse in 5 seconds.
I guess I'll just never understand UNIX people and their fascination with command lines & their hate of GUIs.
If she was stumbling through vi, then you are making an invalid comparison. Seasoned vi users do not stumble through it; they edit files faster than you can with GUI editors (or at least faster than I can, and maybe I'm just slow).Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
Makes two of us and why I also tend to stay away from Linux. That obsession typically creates utilities that are command-line based first, and sometimes not even a GUI is provided.
Good memory is required to avoid typing [command] --help every time. If you show me how to do something in the GUI, it clicks directly, but if you do it in the command-line, it takes far longer. That's just me.
Oh and I had completely forgotten "ls". While I have not forgotten how to do view files in the file manager in Linux.
I love flame wars! :D
Never said they weren't, and never said Aero's requirements were good either ;)Quote:
All the effects are configurable, of course, including the theme, unlike Aero. Oh, and it only requires onboard video, too.
I merely mentioned that to me, they were jerky, while Aero's was not, and some effects did not play well together, while all of Aero's effects play well together.
And by usability, I guess I meant the ease of how to use the OS. From my view, of course.Quote:
Usability... you will have to define that. Of course Linux is as unusable to someone that has never used Linux as Windows is to someone who has never used Windows.
The only one that rivals Windows in that aspect is MacOS. And it is not just about the command lines, but the pain-staking lack of installers, the recompiling of the kernel if new drivers are installed. This may not affect every program out there, of course, but there are some, and some of those I encountered on my journey, and they frustrated me to no end.
Oh and the fact that you cannot execute applications right-out-of-the-box. Typically you have to go commmand-line and enable the execute bit before being able to run it. Just annoying, and does not sit well with me.
Hehehe. Now that would be something, would it not?Quote:
Compatibility with Windows programs... well, better than Windows' compatibility with Linux programs :).
Is Visual Studio / SlickEdit / Word / Excel / Powerpoint / Zoom Player open source? Yes, I know there are alternatives, but those are the ones I tend to use. To me, Open Source is not important.Quote:
On a more serious note, many programs have open source equivalents (in terms of functionality), eg. Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, a few open source IM clients, GCC + the GNU toolchain.
Can the above mentioned programs run under Wine? ;) No? Too bad. Lots of compatibility for others, but none for me :/Quote:
Most of the popular commercial Windows programs can run under wine (an open-source implementation of Windows API on Linux).
Free I agree, open source, I really do not care...Quote:
As for advantages -
Open source and free (both in terms of beer and speech)
Perhaps, but again, this depends on how careful you are. You might download an installer or something that looks like a game, so you go root and execute it. Boom! System infected. Same with Windows. I do not like to put much on that whole security bit. Be careful and know what you are doing. It is not that Linux is more secure, I cannot really agree.Quote:
Security - no worrying about virii and malware. Before people say it's because Linux is not as widely used, no, it's because of the user priviledge system (and Microsoft made a step in the right direction with Vista's UAC, but unfortunately many people perceive it as an annoying feature and disable it. I have never used it myself, so I won't comment on that. The idea is good, though, but it has existed in UNIX/Linux for more than a few decades already. I would imagine the introduction of UAC breaks some applications, too, since many programs assume they have admin access, and do things like writing to "Program Files", and they were right, until Vista). Being open source makes Linux more secure, too, in the sense of actual vulnerabilities/bugs (as opposed, for example, users executing a malware with admin access voluntarily). Linux also includes a sophisticated firewall (part of it in the kernel, part of it userspace). A lot more sophisticated and configurable than the one included in Windows.
You are right about UAC. It is completely worthless, so I too, have disabled it. It pops up everytime a program wants something. It says nothing of what the application intends. Err, OK - how am I supposed to know if to agree or not?
It pops up every abyssius time. If I dismiss it once for that application, for that action, then I do not want it anymore, usually. They are far too frequent.
And thirdly, they limit access to the hard drive for unpackaging utilities, for example. Mostly because there are applications that still do not ask for UAC privileges out there and thus simply fail...
As for the firewall, do not compare Linux's firewall to Window's default one. It is completely insecure, as much do we know. That is why we use good 3rd party firewalls. You are free to compare to those, if you want. Maybe it is a hassle to have to get a 3rd party one instead of relying on a built-in one, but oh well. We cannot have all.
Methinks you are confused on this one. Windows is very user-oriented, in that they design for the users. There are some annoying issues left like things forcing a restart down your throat. And I would rather Microsoft fight these pesky small issues than piracy instead. Maybe they we would have a more usable OS.Quote:
"natural" - it just "makes more sense", perhaps because it is actually designed by users. For example, the update script won't restart the computer automatically after installing updates (sure, you can probably change that, but why have it as the default!?!?). It also makes me wonder how much better Windows would be if Microsoft spent all the effort on fighting piracy with all those annoying "features" on actually improving Windows. Perhaps they have figured that they make more money doing those things than improving the software since Windows is the only choice for the average Joe (which constitutes most of the population), and they have to buy it anyways. I know this is largely subjective, but the overall atmosphere is a lot less "commercialized" in the Linux world, which I find attractive. It feels like the good old days when people mutually share their programs open sourced and get excited when other people use them. That kind of relationships between developers and users are, I think, far more enjoyable than between, say, an average Joe and Microsoft. I have contacted a few open source developers about their programs, and most of the replies I got are very helpful and enthusiastic. Some even implemented features just because I suggested them. They are actually enthusiastic about their programs. It's the kind of enthusiasm we won't find in, for example, a support email from Microsoft.
I do agree that Linux is slightly better in this regard. No annoying focus steal. No popups out of nowhere. No forced reboots, etc.
And there are commercial programs that are happy to receive your input...
For the power-users, yes. To me, that is mumbo jumbo, and makes absolutely no sense (sense in that I cannot understand or use it). But it is good that it is there for the power-users.Quote:
Productivity - powerful command line tools allow easy automation of many tasks like differential backup, file management (eg. delete files that are older than xyz, with a .txt extension, and with a length that is an odd number), batch image manipulation, and what I have actually done - a script that parses the National Geographic site and download the "picture of the day", remove the black banner, scale it, and set it as my wallpaper. All in a few lines, leveraging the power of wget, a command line file downloader, grep, a utility that searches a file for specific tokens, ImageMagick, a command line image processing program, and the command line interface of my desktop manager (GNOME). Sure, for average Joes this kind of things aren't important, but for computer literate people (people who aren't afraid of learning new things), this is quite priceless.
Of course, me hating that stuff, I could not care less.
And that is what we wanted to say all day long, eh? :)Quote:
Both OSes have their pros and cons...
I'd say all (good) programmers are computer literate... if not then you have a problem.
To put it bluntly, for example vi is far quicker to use than any GUI will ever be. Of course once you climb the learning curve mountain =). The command-line is also usually faster than a GUI to do the same thing.
Perhaps we could apply the "use the right tool for the job" here?
Some people are never going to learn command lines, and thus GUI will always be faster and more productive.
But some people will always prefer command lines over GUIs, and thus it will be more practical to them.
I'd say the cost of looking up command switches is amortized, because of the 80-20 rule - 80% of the commands issued are 20% of all possible commands, and people memorize those because they are so frequently used. Sure, for the other 20% of issued commands, the cost is doubled (first one to get the "--help"), but the time wasted is relatively insignificant. In this case, the ratio is actually more like 95-5 than 80-20.Quote:
Good memory is required to avoid typing [command] --help every time. If you show me how to do something in the GUI, it clicks directly, but if you do it in the command-line, it takes far longer. That's just me.
Me, too! That's something we agree on :).Quote:
I love flame wars!
I am using the default set of effects, and they work quite nicely and smoothly. Granted I have a GeForce 9600 GT... :). Worked fine with my old 8600 GT, too. Unfortunately I have never tried it with older video cards.Quote:
I merely mentioned that to me, they were jerky, while Aero's was not, and some effects did not play well together, while all of Aero's effects play well together.
I won't continue the argument on security... since it has been argued quite throughly in another thread not long ago :).
And from my view, of someone who has 3 years of experience with Linux and 10 years of experience with Windows, Linux is more usable :). Sure, Linux is harder to learn, but once learned, it just makes things so much easier.Quote:
And by usability, I guess I meant the ease of how to use the OS. From my view, of course.
I guess the difference is that Windows is designed for the average Joe, while Linux is designed for computer literate people. It makes sense for Windows because 99% of all users are the average Joe. It would be suicidal for Microsoft to orient the OS towards computer literate people. On the contrary, open source developers have no such obligation to make money. They don't need to deal with user idiocity (how do you spell that again? =P). As we all know, it is way more fun to program for literate people than the average Joe. Open source developers assume the user knows what he is doing. Microsoft setting the Windows Update default to automatically restart the computer without user consent clearly shows that they assume the user doesn't know what he/she is doing, and I don't like that feeling :).Quote:
Methinks you are confused on this one. Windows is very user-oriented, in that they design for the users. There are some annoying issues left like things forcing a restart down your throat.
I don't think Microsoft agrees that the restart issue is an issue :). It's clearly a design decision they made.Quote:
And I would rather Microsoft fight these pesky small issues than piracy instead
Few and far between. The level of interactivity between user and developer is way more in the open source world than the commercial world. Try to get some feature added for you personally in Windows 7 :). Ask that of a Linux developer, assuming the request is reasonable (implementable and makes sense), there is a high chance you will get it. On the other hand, they do expect more of their users, too. When they receive a request for support email, they assume you have already throughly read the documentation and Googled. If that's not the case, they can simply delete your e-mail. They have no obligation to help you (feel free to get the program refunded :)), unlike commercial developers, and I think that is fair. They are generally very excited about their program, too, because they are developing not because they have to, but because they enjoy doing it.Quote:
And there are commercial programs that are happy to receive your input...
True, there is a learning curve. The question is whether it pays off. For me, definitely. I do things much more efficiently now than I used to, thanks to all those mumbo jumbo.Quote:
For the power-users, yes. To me, that is mumbo jumbo, and makes absolutely no sense (sense in that I cannot understand or use it). But it is good that it is there for the power-users.
Of course, me hating that stuff, I could not care less.
For me, I first started to learn Linux about 3 years ago (Red Hat 9 :)), to learn more about computers in general. I wasn't satisfied with just seeing it from Microsoft's perspective. I wanted to separate my understanding of computers from my understanding of Windows. It is quite difficult to do without knowing another OS. For example, it never occurred to me that the idea of "drive letters" is actually a Microsoft invention, and not something fundamental in computers, until I learned that Linux doesn't use them. That is to say, I learned Linux purely for the sake of learning it, without any intention to actually use it. I thought I would give it a few months to be reasonably familiar with it, then I will wipe it out and get Windows back. Didn't happen :).
Whether it be linux, or windows, who cares, it's just what you're used to. My mother is as computer illiterate as they come, and she uses linux. Why? Because I'm sick and tired of having to reinstall/fix her windows box every 2 months because she doesnt know to keep her mouse pointer away from malware. And no, Windows is not that easy to setup so that she could do it by herself. Neither could she set up a linux box of course.
Does she have to know the system in and out? Of course not. Want to browse the net? Just press that little icon over there. Want to listen to music? Press that one over there. And the joy of it all? I never have to fix anything, simply because she cant screw *anything* up. EDIT: Of course she could delete all her personal files, but that's it.
As far as I'm concerned, linux is a far better choice for her, then windows will ever be, and that should end this whole nonsensical discussion.
Just my 2 cents.
I would totally install Linux for my mother, but every now and then her school decides that they must now use this great new app for ... whatever, and then it would't run, because of course the damn thing is a Windows application. If it was up to me ...
Actually, the same thing back in the days for a certain individual in my household.
But I did not install Linux - I found a far better solution - run that certain individual on a standard user account (using XP). No problems. When something had to be installed, I would do it myself.
The very same thing that Vista tries to do with UAC (only problem being that it is horribly broken) and Linux does with its root.
It is just the principle, not the OS.
I've had my fair share of problems with windows :P I think I've reformatted about 20 times, in my three to four year useage of computers (I know, I'm new, but wasn't easy getting one :P)
Other than that, you people got me thinking about Linux or Ubuntu or what ever...
Can I have Linux and windows on the same PC?
Does Linux support directX?
Does Linux support all games? Except those who are "Vista only" but would be great if it did support them too :P
Does Linux support Visual Studio?
Yes.Quote:
Can I have Linux and windows on the same PC?
Wine has some DirectX support. But for your own programs, you should use OpenGL and other libraries.Quote:
Does Linux support directX?
No. A game needs to be cleanly written to run under Wine, and even then there's some chance it won't run. But most games aren't cleanly written. The Wine homepage has a huge application compatibility database.Quote:
Does Linux support all games?
Refer to the database. I don't think so, though.Quote:
Does Linux support Visual Studio?
so... anyone up for giving link to simplest linux "version" ubuntu maybe? and i need one that can be installed with anoter os, does not erase it
Because it does. Not all, not at full functionality on some applications and sometimes with problems. But does for a large number of applications. Which is more than I can say about Windows.Quote:
I guess because of all the talk of Wine and how it runs Windows apps under Linux?
In any case, I don't see why Windows should support Linux application, true. And for all that matters, I find Virtual Machines a much better solution under most circumstances.
...
I switched to Linux a few months ago. My hair didn't fall yet. I think I'm safe. And more than ever before I don't understand any of the arguments against it.
Yes. I suggest Ubuntu for the time being. Vast user base and lots of documentation and books out there targeting this system. When you get comfortable enough my true suggestion is Arch Linux. It contains only the essentials and will allow you to build your OS with just the stuff you want. More than I can say for all the crap that Ubuntu installs and the, I'm afraid to say, terrible packages maintenance.Quote:
so... anyone up for giving link to simplest linux "version" ubuntu maybe? and i need one that can be installed with anoter os, does not erase it
So I just download Ubuntu and I have the OS? Or, it doesn't interfere with Windows?
Would like to take a look at it for real, but first I'll need my PC back or a new one, then Imma get Ubuntu and Windows ;)
Yes, and no it doesn't usually interfere with Windows. However, there is some project out there that allows Ubuntu to run under windows (called Wubi) or something. Or it runs on the Windows partition, I never tried it because it's a terrible idea IMO.
You should do your research for which distro to begin with, ie OpenSuse, Ubuntu -- any of the "user friendly" ones. Then perhaps you may want to move to Slackware or Arch =). Or if your time is worthless, Gentoo :p
I usually run Linux in VMWare, that way I can run Windows & Linux at the same time.
All major distributions can do that. Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, SuSE...Quote:
so... anyone up for giving link to simplest linux "version" ubuntu maybe? and i need one that can be installed with anoter os, does not erase it
But first, make sure you are ready to devote at least a few months to it, a few hours everyday. Learning a new OS is not easy. Don't expect to play with it for two hours and be a Linux expert.
The world would be full of Linux experts if that was the case :). You have been warned.
As for wine, it is just for those one or two programs that you absolutely must have and has no comparable replacement. If you want to use all your Windows apps under Linux... might as well just run Windows. It is the case for all OSes, not just Linux. On Windows, use Visual Studio, on Linux, use one of those Linux IDEs, and on Mac, use xCode. Most of the programs I use nowadays are cross-platform, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, GCC, Code::Blocks, etc, just so I don't need to use different programs on different platforms.
Dammit >.< Well, I seem to learn easily, since I learned how to play Stronghold before my older brother, while I was only watching and he was actually playing the game :P So, if I think about, that it'll take a long time, I'll give up... Likewise with C++ -.- I hate my lack of patience :P
Just hope I'll get my PC back soon, so that I can actually try Linux ^^
Not to discourage you... but learning a new OS is not a matter of a few hours. Think about how long it took you to learn Windows. It should take about that much time (maybe a bit less).
I never learnt windows :P Just knew how to use it when I got my first PC... Probably from seeing others use it... But it took me some time to get into advanced stuff, but learning them took no time :P
You can try Ubuntu and some other distros as "Live CD" first.
Oh, you learned it alright. You just don't seem to realize you did.
Early learning experiences, particularly those that come as as part of a natural process and when seen after the fact, don't look much like there was any effort in it. But that's just your selective memory at work. You have put as much effort in learning Windows as you'd put in learning Linux. Only this time, because you are aware... and unwilling... it will look harder to you.
If you can rise above it, you will succeed in learning a new operating system and consequently diversify yourself. I could put some interesting quote here from some interesting person, but I'm sure I don't need it. You know the importance of Knowledge.
Ok, you're clever and all, so I'm not gonna argue, 'cause I dunno anything more than I never really learnt Windows, and if your knowledge thing is true, then that's high tech stuff I don't understand :P
But I'll still check Linux/ubuntu out, and hopefully be able to press Start... Wait, does it have the Start button? 'Cause that's my navigation, and I need it :P
Yes, it does. It's not labeled Start, and has no Windows icon on it, but it's there all right.
Phew... That's a life-saver :P
Getting my PC back today, hope Linux will fix the constant problematic computer... Problems :P
You realize that there is no "magic way" to solve "problematic computer problems"?
Shoo the negative attitude :P Ofc there's a magic way... Like, not using Vista ;)
I use Vista and have not run into any big problems. That is to say that the "problems" is not connected to Vista, ie there is no magic way to get rid of them.
The point is - you should not simply use Linux if you think it will drive away the problems. It will probably give you more problems, seeing as are still unfamiliar with it. Use Linux because you think it is the approach to managing your computer that you like best.
I always like to try new things, and now I'll try Linux ^^
And maybe it is like you said with the 360, some precentage get problems of it, Vista :P
Infact, trying often hurts :P Like trying to ride a horse, which ended very bad, feel directly on my head after being on it for about 1 min :P
But, Vista is too much of the eye-candy, and stupid security :P I don't wanna press 'Ok' loads of times to create a new folder >.>
Where are you creating the new folder?
I don't create folders in any of the system folders, so I never get those annoying prompts.
The only time I ever get one of those prompts is when I run a program that wants to do something that needs Admin access, such as regedit...
I get them all the time :P like, xfire, when it starts... That means on start up :P
You can disable UAC, you know.
But why would you want to? Then you're just lowering the security level back to the way XP runs.
You can also disable your antivirus & firewall apps to gain a little performance, but again, why would you want to?
I'd rather know when a program tries to do something that requires admin rights; that way, if it's a program that I don't completely trust yet, I can say No until I can figure out what it's trying to do to my system.
I can't remember the last time I reformated windows. Actually I should say, reformated windows and installed windows.
I formated my old desktop and put ubuntu on it, shoved it under the bed, and now use it as a development server.
I know last time I installed windows: I got a new motherboard, and I had to do a re-install to get it going on the new motherboard. I'm sure I could have spent hours getting it working without re-installing, but it felt like a better idea to re-install. Still spent LOTS of time figuring out how to get stuff back up again that was installed in the original directory.
That was about 5 years ago.
--
Mats
Why would I want to? Because I want my applications to work right and stop being pestered by pop-ups all the time.
It asks time and time again for the very same thing and says "App X wants admin rights", not even WHY it wants admin rights.
Half of the apps do not work right. Compression utilities cannot extract to the hard drive where I want to, etc, etc, etc.
It is just an annoyance. And I did not get Vista for the security.
I have managed fine with just a Firewall in XP. So I will in Vista, as well. Although technically I am just running behind a router now.
But I do use software that monitors what is happening in the system and if some application is trying to do something suspicious. And I do not need UAC for that, because it is pretty much worthless and useless for that purpose.
Instead you get prompts everytime the app starts.
Ok, Vista officially sucks monkeyballs -.- The ........ won't let me burn Ubuntu on data cd >.>
Stuff that doesn't work, really enrages me >.<
One extra click everytime you start up the PC is bad :P
That's like... Uncountable times for me ;)
I think the reason MS made it that annoying was to force software vendors to fix their code so that they stop doing things that require Admin rights unless they absolutely need to. I guess they underestimated the annoyance factor it would cause to some of their users. :p
ok, i got ubuntu installed, and now its partioning, which doesnt seem to be working at all
anyways, i choose instal into windows or something, what are the bad effects of this?
Windows CD/DVD burning has always been poor. You should always use a 3rd party utility. I have had no problems burning an ISO to a DVD using ImgBurn.
I believe I experimented with running all programs as admin (compatibility mode), but it didn't work out in the end.
Quite. They admitted as much.
What does that mean? Does that mean installing Windows anew?
If yes, then should be no ill effects.
> what are the bad effects of this?
The NTFS driver is reversed engineered. Sure it works, but it's not perfect, propper write support is fairly recent (last 2 or so years).
Don't worry too much, my 2 media drives are NTFS.
Ok, I'm now on Ubuntu ;) And... I ain't quite sure how I installed it... I think Vista didn't let me install Ubuntu into Vista "Install Ubuntu just like any other application" as it said, so I made a new partion and installed there... Well, from just looking at Ubuntu, it seems nice enough... Didn't take any faster to start than Vista, but it looks exstremely easy to use... Like, I can get into adminstration just by pressing one button, instead of the Windows, complicated thing... But I'll have to look more into this, and really check if I like it ;)
Oh and btw, I see nothing of the good freedom Linux is supposed to give...
EDIT: Ah! Doesn't Linux support .exe files o.o? I can't open them, it's saying something about, that it ain't a .zip file or something...
You need Wine for that.Quote:
Doesn't Linux support .exe files o.o?
Seems to me like you jumped on the band wagon before realising what a band wagon was or where it's going :p
Huh? Install gcc-dev (or just gcc, perhaps) and run gcc on the command line. It should just work.
Aha! ... If only I knew where the command line was :P
And I DLed GCC through SVN, and it has alot of files, which one to run?
Most likely under Start->System->Console or something very similar.Quote:
Aha! ... If only I knew where the command line was :P
None, of course. You downloaded the source code. You want a proper release version, which you get through Ubuntu's package manager.Quote:
And I DLed GCC through SVN, and it has alot of files, which one to run?
GCC ain't on Ubuntu's package manager, if you mean the Add/Remove application, 'cause I couldn't find any package manager :P
Go to Synaptic Package Manager, search for gcc (might be multiple packages), tick it, press apply. Should download&install in no time. Then search for "codeblocks", tick it, apply. Then there will be a "Programming" submenu under the main menu, where there is Code::Blocks - ready to serve you. ;)
Edit: Package manager is under System->Administration if I remember correctly.
Hmm... Why do I need both GCC and Code::Blocks?
GCC is the compiler, Code::Blocks is the IDE. Because Code::Blocks can work with multiple compilers, it probably has no hard dependency on GCC.
So, I DLed the SVN for no reason? :P
And I still havn't seen any of the promised freedom Linux is supposed to give me... Where is it? :P