Version 1 release candidates (rc) were good already. Any program can suck if you run an old version. But while we're at it I'd rather have my screen look like this (fluxbox window manager used):
http://members.lycos.nl/darkleaf/pics/screen.jpeg
If you don't want to run gnome or kde which are bloated both choose a lightweight manager which makes it easy to theme and create your own menus for.

Some linuxes are starting to become as easy to use as windows but with a lot more depth. Of course it's not wrong for an OS to have it's own programs but linux programs are cross-platform. Linux doesn't have a register and is easy to configure, you can make it exactly as you want it. you can tell it where to go instead of windows telling you what you can or can't do.

Linux is free, the security policy is implemented better.

Further I second the winXP theme is ugly.

Just remember. Nobody has to use linux it's all about choice. Linux = Choice.

[ 11-08-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

Sorry to go a bit offtopic here, but that is a cool background picture Philip.

http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/magick-x/ it's this background but I use another theme on it.

First Linux I tried to install was TurboLinux. Version 6, I think... but I've put that memory behind me. The install was painful; I was installing it to a box I'd put together from spare parts, and it wanted me to identify makes and models of all the components. How should I know what frigging video card this has? It's six years old, for pete's sake!

Later, I got a copy of Red Hat 8. The installation was completely different... kicked it off, it asked me a couple of questions, and then told me what the hardware was and asked me to confirm.

Far more user-friendly, for sure. Just as easy as installing XP, and a fraction of the cost. And just like XP, you can administer it right, or you can administer it the way it came out of the box.

Only challenge I had was in setting up Samba, which worked for the file systems but not for the printers. And I don't need it for a print server any more anyway [img]smile.gif[/img]

Am I biased one way or the other? No. I need to work on both sides. But it's not so clear and simple as one might think.

In many ways, most of us are spoiled by M$. GUI, themes, wizards, Plug n Play and etc.

Not all of us are techno wizards who like to install and configure every inch (or centimeter) of the OS. Most of us just like to use an OS which is easy to install and use.

I do agree that XP is kind of bloated, but it is user friendly and stable.

I can manage with DOS, but unix commands is just too complex for me. Why bother with all the hassle when you could have a user friendly OS?

Yeah, XP is full of security holes; not to mention IE 5.x/6.x but convenience does has its price to be paid.

Right now I am using Firefox 0.10.1 and ZoneAlarm Pro, which should secure my PC somewhat. Knowing that I do not have the time nor patience to play around with Linux, this is as "secure" as I can be while maintaining the ease of use.

GUI and themes are easy to get in linux as well if you want. In my experience wizards created more problems than they solved. Plug and play screwed up my IRQs and linux happily solves that by not putting my network and video card on the same IRQ cause it knows that's a not so good combo.

Who says linux isn't easy to install? There are a few distro's that are just as good at detecting hardware and stuff as windows. The problem is again that the GUI and wizards sometimes don't do things right. But we knew this already from windows.

More stable than winme but well I didn't knew what really stable is till I used linux.

Cause you can tell it where to go and not let m$ do that. Don't you hate those messages telling you that something you want can't be done. Or error messages that just aren't useful in figuring out what's going wrong?

I once read or heard of an article that told people how much they take from m$. They took a car and compared it to the PC. And things you just wouldn't take if it were in your car you happily use on your PC. BUt well whatever you like.

Using firefox helps a lot. Only using that solved like all of my spyware problems except one. But well if you just want to use linux it's not as hard as you think anymore with some distro's (I haven't tried those though since I hated the bloatedness and that it looked so much like windows ;) ).

I do, when you have to re-compile the kernel only a few hours after install,, there has got to be something wrong...

I'll disagree with that. Over the last half a year I've installed Mandrake Linux 9.2 at least twenty times and it is a breeze. Compared to windows XP, the installation is about three times as fast, twice as easy, everything is set up and working. I also don't have to spend the half an hour I usually spend in WinXP getting rid of all the cartoons and shutting down services I don't need. Not to mention, I can choose exactly what's installed down to individual files.

The installation experience for me has been one of the best things about Linux. Hivetyrant - try Mandrake's distro - it's widely regarded as being the best for somebody new to Linux and I understand its graphical utilities are almost second-to-none allowing you to avoid the command line more or less completely. (although I'd recommend diving in, you'll never look back ;) )

One of the best features is the fact that your personal files are left completely alone. Windows threatens to delete the contents of My Documents et al if I reinstall over another installation - Linux keeps it all completely separate and even has the desktop set up exactly how I had it before when I first boot it up. Pure class.

EDIT:

Just realised I forgot two of the most important good things about a Linux installation:

1) I don't have to spend a good half hour searching for cds and installing drivers for all my devices and restarting my computer ad nauseum. Linux detects them at setup and they work 'out of the box'.

2) I don't have to spent a good two hours (at least - I have a fast connection!) on the windows update site downloading large service packs and security updates to fix holes that should never have been there. Not to mention more interminable restarts because half of them have to be installed singly.

[ 11-08-2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<span style="color: lightblue">But I don't unless I need it. Linux can satisfy both our desires; Windows can satisfy only yours.
<span style="color: lightblue">Notepad? GOOD? Maybe if all your doing is editing some basic config files... oh, wait, Windows forces you to do things Windows' Way... maybe I'm spoiled with Linux letting me do things my way.
<span style="color: lightblue">And what if you do? Just because you don't want to right now, straight away, doesn't mean you will never want to. As the world becomes more and more computer, and especially internet, centric, you will find that anyone who's anyone will host a server.
<span style="color: lightblue">Ever done it in Linux? It's far better.
<span style="color: lightblue">Replace IRC with "MSN/ICQ/Email".

<span style="color: lightblue">Consider the following scenarios:
1) A random computer user is having problems with their graphics card. Because of this, they can't load any graphical interface. BUT, they can boot to a command line, and use a console browser to find out how to fix their problem.

2) A blind person is having trouble with grapihcal browsers because their screenreaders can't hook into them properly. This particular screen reader reads exactly what is on the screen, rather than reading the DOM. This leads to problems with images and flash. This person COULD disable these things in the browser, but the computer is also shared by a person who needs those to be displayed for the work they do. So, instead of the jumping through hoops method of turning images on and off (which could be overlooked at any opportunity), the blind person can use the command line, and a console browser: the screenreader will have no problems because graphics don't exist, and as a bonus there will be no need for it to work out what different icons are.

<span style="color: lightblue">They work well if you have a mouse. To use them with a keyboard is more than possible, but it is rather clunky.
-why can't you just use the find in windows?
-whoa! Colours! I’m so sorry
-yes but edit is a better name than vim
-no I’ve never seen it, nor do i want to

<span style="color: lightblue">And that is what cp is for. Copying is fullfilled easily by both systems, Linux offers a bit more. There are situations when you will want both to change.

<span style="color: lightblue">Then change to a different shell. Linux lets you do that.

<span style="color: lightblue">The problem isn't that they're there, or that they're the default. The problem is that they cannot be removed.

<span style="color: lightblue">You've seen a few screenshots of it. The interface is kindof wierd, but trust me, it is far superior to anything I have ever come across.

<span style="color: lightblue">On Linux, you can use a Window Manager that makes more use of the desktop than Windows, or you can use one that doesn't have desktop icons at all. I know which I like, you know which you like, and we can both use what we want and be equally productive.

<span style="color: lightblue">I know how to, you know how to, does EVERYONE know how to? The way to do it is hardly intuitive: you must first know to right click on an empty part of the desktop (while it is usual to only click on specific UI elements, like icons and the taskbar, rather than the backdrop), go to "Properties", know to click it, then go to Desktop. For you and me, it is extremely easy. For someone else, it may be a huge leap of understanding.

<span style="color: lightblue">Defaults matter. Many users won't fiddle much with their system, and will leave everything on or close to default. Others will give up on it straight away if they don't like how it does something by default. This is one of the main reasons I never liked MacOS, and why many people initially hated Windows 95A.

<span style="color: lightblue">It's quite easy, realy. But since this is a thread about the pros and cons of Windows XP, we'll leave that discussion for another time.

<span style="color: lightblue">I don't want to disable hiding of inactive icons: I like that feature. If I must use the system tray (which many Windows applications insist of making me do), I don't want it getting poluted.

<span style="color: lightblue">Sure, it works. Until it breaks. Spyware isn't only caused by downloading "shifty" programs, or visiting bad sites: it is often caused by general internet usage. Especially if you use IE.

<span style="color: lightblue">Now, tell me, what firewall will the average user want to be using? Certainly they won't want to be downloading it, or buying it. They'll most likely want to use one that comes with the system... and pre-SP2 the Windows Firewall is more a map to your computer than a way of protecting it. And this is assuming that this user will want to use a firewall, and that they know what one is. Many will not. Linux, on install, lets you choose what level to set it's firewall to, and even recomends what it would be good for. Windows firewall is off by default, and very hard to find. It is not even mentioned in the installer.

<span style="color: lightblue">If you didn't want to hear about Linux, why did you post this thread, and then encourage me to reply? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<span style="color: lightblue">Try a newer version. If this bug is still there, then harness the power of Free Software, and report it.

<span style="color: lightblue">Ditto that (except the colour bit [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), but switch "Linux" for "Windows" [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<span style="color: lightblue">The problem is not that the programs are bundled with Windows. The problem is that they cannot be removed. I don't have a problem with IE being installed with Windows, but I want to be able to remove iexplore.exe if I don't use it. It is more like a car company who makes their car as one single unit, instead of the sum of its parts, preventing you from upgrading the engine, say, without buying a whole new car.

<span style="color: lightblue">I am seeing now why mozillazine don't like Fedora much. It doesn't show you the Linux Way. It shows you a beaten down method of doing things, copied from Windows, and made even worse. It doesn't let you see the command line unless you're told about it, and it ships only with GNOME and KDE window managers... which are, as you point out, quite ugly and non-intuitive. Which is why I don't use them: on Linux there ARE alternatives.

<span style="color: lightblue">Ever heard the phrase "argue the point, not the person"? It means, simply, don't call me names because of what I argue about. Take my arguments, disect them, and disprove them. Making comments about an opponents intelligance will win you no debates and no respect. It doesn't make you good.

EDIT: On the note of find, it apears that my meaning was misunderstood. I wasn't commenting on the differences between MSDOS and Batch, but rather between Edit and Vim. "No find functionality" means that Edit doesn't have any way to search for a phrase in a currently open document. Every other text editor I have used, including MS Notepad and Vim, has this.

[ 11-09-2004, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]

Lennon, you really enjoy trying to look smart dont you.
Im not going to bther arguing with the stuff you said, because most people will realise that you are extremely biased and strange, most of that did not make sense.

You are just digging that hole deeper and deeper.