Cats like me, though, don't like paying money for Windows.

You like paying money for linux?

f Linux could do half the shit windows does and if Linux did not get away with 99.99% of the things windows is slammed for...

er, I don't pay for Linux. At least, my version of Kubuntu is totally free.

People like windows because it comes preloaded on their machine, with all the manufacturer's drivers.

I reinstalled my Uni's XP on my laptop, and it was a bitch to find and install the drivers. I couldn't get them all on the laptop website, so now my ethernet adapter just doesn't work in XP. Nice.

Contrast to Windows: if I need software, I need to buy it. If I can't buy it, I can look for open-source stuff, which is fine (GIMP, Inkscape, Filezilla), but for other things, I'm forced to install crippled shareware, or purchase something.

Over time, every Windows installation I've owned has come to a sluggish, meandering behaviour, running the CPU without telling me what's going on.

Man, I grew up fanatic about Windows, using every version since 2.0. I just got to thse point where it seemed like Windows was pushing me around, so I tried Ubuntu and never looked back.

But for the times you need something useful, something which productive people use there's that option too.

Or I can just come out and say it: no one pays for software anymore!

oh boohoo, something tells me you're not trying hard enough, read: at all. heck, even if I were to believe your fairytale you could resort to legacy drivers in XP which would work better than cobbled together drivers Linux has, or probably hasn't.

"I grew up unbiased, I've used Linux, I've used Windows, I've used Mac. "

Something which productive people use? What's that? You don't pay for software?

Well, I pirated a lot of software when I was younger, but now I've decided that I don't want to do that anymore. I find it more rewarding to support open source projects, or I'm happy to buy software that I think it important.

You can choose to not believe me, but then there's no point in us arguing. I'm telling you what I did: installed XP. Went to Acer's site to download the drivers. They didn't include an ethernet driver, so it doesn't work in Windows. I could root around on forums to figure it out, but it's not worth it

Graphics driver - no problem, found a quick solution on the forum.

Wireless - more work, but about 5 minutes. I had fun, too.

After I installed Linux, everything installed just fine out of the box, except for the wireless, which is a big problem with Linux, and there was a problem with the graphics driver.

Two things you're correct about: games and codecs. Games are tough in Linux. A lot of them work with Wine, but newer games are tough.

Codecs are not supplied with Ubuntu for legal reasons. When you try to play a DVD, it asks you if you want to download the codec. You click yes. In 15s, it's downloaded and installed. That seems easy.

How are you unbiased? There's nothing in your comments that is free of bias, especially your word choice. If you were truly unbiased, you'd see faults in both sides.

I doubt it would run Vista...

"ROFL, yeah, makes you feel like a rebel using open source software eh?"

"it's better to be a rebel than not I suppose."

"...like a rebel anyway"

"Photoshop, After Effects, 3D Studio max, Maya, list goes on and on"

"*sigh*, only with MS can you make such uninformed remarks and be praised for it..."

Did I say I felt like a rebel?

I just think that you can have quality without having to pay into a commercial scheme.

Do you pay for this software? Should I call you a rebel for pirating it? Or just a pirate?

You criticized me for not wanting to search on forums for Windows problems, but willing to for Linux.

My position is, why should I have to look for fixes on a commercial product? Especially one as widespread as Windows? Since I got Linux for free, I don't mind the tinkering, because the price is right.

Uninformed? I made these remarks purely on research. Instead of buying Vista and installing it to see if it would work, I read reviews that suggested that you'd be better off with 2 GB of RAM and dual core to run Vista:

"you imply you do"

"truth is I don't pay for it because I can't afford it, does that make me a thief? Well great, but only if I'm making money from that software will i feel the need to pay someone something."

"Pay who? How much did you pay for Windows? It's pre-installed on most PCs for crying out loud!"

"that's a load of utter bullshit, I ran Vista on a 1gb system with an OOOOOOOOLD 2.8ghz p4. I have no idea who the hell came up with the 2gb crap,"

How did I imply it? I don't feel special for using Linux, I don't feel like a 'rebel'. I'd love for it to go mainstream, making it easier to use and find drivers for.

So you have your principles. And I have mine: I don't have money to buy expensive software, so I'm happy to use open-source software. The difference is that you attack me for it. I understand your position - I was there myself, but I've changed my opinion.

It's not pre-installed on mine. I bought a Linux laptop, if you'll read the post, which means I'd have to pay for XP.

ah - thanks for the tip. I'll try that when I get home.

I don't have a 2.8 GHz P4; only a 1.8 GHz Celeron. I'm not going to buy Vista just to try and see if it works, especially since I don't really have anything to run on Vista. I had one experience with Vista - using it on a contract laptop, and it frustrated me quite a bit.

Now, what do I like about Linux? Well, I love the idea of repositories, which makes upgrading a breeze. Upgrading in Windows, unless you disable it, is invasive. I lost a day's worth of simulation data because windows thought it a good idea to restart the computer.

My favourite, of all, is Kile, the frontend editor for Latex, which, for me, is the preferred medium for writing documents. I wrote one thesis in Word, and it was ugly - no more, if I can help it.

" ...attack you for assuming open source software somehow makes Linux superior, this, despite the fact most open source software you use exists on Windows but isn't used on Windows because of better alternatives."

"you could have bought it preinstalled therefore you wouldn't have to fiddle around."

"and then find a way to bash microsoft for not making it more obvious?"

"In any case, your fear of vista is unjustified and seems to be based on the opinions of tech journalists who think they should have the right to judge the MSR of a software by its beta and when it doesn't fit in with their world view exaggerate a little."

"Linux could just as well think that, a computer is a computer, it does things, and it will reset your computer if you have said 'yes ok, enable autoupdates and reset my computer without confirmation'."

Also comments like this:

My favourite, of all, is Kile, the frontend editor for Latex, which, for me, is the preferred medium for writing documents. I wrote one thesis in Word, and it was ugly - no more, if I can help it.

What? bleh.

Saying what? That I feel like a persecuted rebel because I don't use Windows? Your point of view seems to be that, since I won't conform to the mainstream operating system, I must be a rebel.

I think Linux is superior because the entire operating system is open-source, not just the programs. Yes, you can run open source software in Windows, and I do, everyday, choosing to use GIMP, Inkscape, Filezilla instead of their commercial equivalents.

Perhaps I will bash it. Detecting new hardware in Windows didn't work when I installed it. Why didn't it automatically look for all the drivers immediately? The solution you suggest is not, actually, that obvious.

Unjustified? I think it's totally justified to be wary of spending -whoa, this can't be right... CNET australia claims Vista Home Basic is $385. Ah, d_category=All&_publisher=Al l&os=All&start_srch.x=0&start _srch.y=0&gclid=CKK01p3Y-pMCF SQtagodlxmEWQ" target="_blank">here's a site for Vista Home Basic for $170.

Right - but it doesn't. I've run it for a year without it ever doing something I didn't want it to do in the background.

Also, your issue with Vista doesn't seem that bad. I don't mind having different price levels, though it is confusing to consumers, especially those who see the fancy eye candy but don't realize it's not in Home Basic.

I see nothing wrong with bashing Microsoft.
Despite my business being dependent upon it for now.

Securty Holes.
Bloatware.
Clashing memory blocks
And the Biggest problem of Ram leak which they never want to address.

Blue screen of death anyone?

On average, the Windows setup had just over 30 days of risk versus 71 days for the Red Hat setup, their study found.

"That's a very surprising statistic, and I must say the first time I saw this statistic I thought you messed with my database," Ford said to Thompson. Their presentation started jokingly, with Ford reeling off Windows jabs and praising the virtues of freely shared software that's developed collaboratively over the Internet.

Damo, I don't know much about these issues, unfortunately, except for bloatware. Yes, it's terrifying that each iteration of software seems to take up more disk space. Just because we have more space doesn't mean we need to fill it!

I guarantee that I have forgotten more than you have had time to learn.

Well, if your going to try to tell me what I know, when I do this for a living...

I do know when someone is bluffing.

Ahmed, majoring in comp sci doesn't make you an expert at anything.

When you eventually finish school and get a job in the real world where theories actually tested you may know the difference between 20 years of experience on top of qualifications and being a second or third year Uni student.

There is a difference.

With the exception of SQL anything older than three years is already obsolete