A thread to talk about computers, continuing a conversation already started: Llywen wrote: <get a mac> <ME>Pfthh... that costs money. At least my solution was free.. Too much money, at that. Unlike some geeks, I'll give Apple their due. They make a darn fine machine, particularly for anything that needs a cutting edge graphics processor, or a lot of memory... AND they hit a homerun with OS X. It's great, it's user-friendly, almost intuitive even, and it looks pretty But unless you're doing CAD, 3D animations, or something like that, I don't see how the average home user really gets what they pay for with an Apple PC. <LLYWEN> >For the most part its Virus and spyware free...plus marble blast is really cool <EMMY> >Amen <ME> >I dunno what marble blast is, but viruses and spyware is just a reason to get off windows, not a reason to get a Mac. Linux IS virus and spyare free, it's free to acquire, and can work on literally any PC, from the old IBM-based PCs,i386's, PowerPCs, 64 bits, dual procesor, dual core, servers, even Macs. <Brother Reed> >I'm a graphics major, so it'd be nice to have a Mac. Right now, though, my three-year-old PC works probably as well as the stuff in our Mac lab at school. I don't know what person decided that the graphics students should do their work on iMacs (consumer-friendly media machines) rather than a more serious work station. <ME QUOTED> Linux IS virus and spyare free, it's free to acquire, and can work on literally any PC, from the old IBM-based PCs,i386's, PowerPCs, 64 bits, dual procesor, dual core, servers, even Macs. <LLYWEN> >That's not what symantec says They have a whole section devoted to linux threats... >Anyhow regardless of what tech guys think (and yes I've spent way too much time in the tech industry) in all honesty linux just isn't as user friendly for people as Windows and OS X are. For instance, the average home user wants to be able to plug their digital equipment in, download from Itunes, watch DVDs, etc. Linux either can't help them or is way too difficult to figure out. >So that is why the average joe doesn't use linux and since my opinion is that OS X is much better than Windows...well thats what I reccommend <screams> >i use ubuntu, but for someone who is a novice pc user it would probably be easier for them to use windows or os.x. <ME> I'm not surprised that Symantec would say that. Their bread and butter is their products made for Windows. But I've been using Linux since about 2001, and I have never installed antivirus programs on it, and I have never had a virus on a Linux machine.. Not one. Conversely, before I started encouraging my family and clients to get on open-source OS's (Linux, yes, but BSD is good, too) the majority of my computer projects was getting Windows machinse up and running again. At least 3 times I've made somebody a brand-new fresh Windows install, just to be servicing the machine again in 1-3 months. It might seem good, more projects = more money for me, but I like to be challenged, not to spend my time waiting for Install to finish so I can configure it... With Linux, even if I DID need to wipe a drive, I could ghost it off a master... Windows being closed source and proprietary, I can't legally do that. Each install must have its own COA code. The reason I can confidently say that Linux IS now virus free is due to the widespread use of Livedisks. This is an OS entirely run from a CD or DVD. This means even if someone breaches your security, the worst that could happen is you have to reboot. Since the CD is not writeable (as long as you finalize during burn), you get the exact same bootup every single time. Not the easiest for Desktop use, as far as installing extras, but these days you can find a livedisk that has everything you need. Servers are more crucial as far as security, and LiveCD is the way to go. I also have had Linux mounting an NTFS filesystem as read-only, so even if security is breached, the computer can't change the filesystem if it wanted to. >Anyhow regardless of what tech guys think (and yes I've spent way too much time in the tech industry) in all honesty linux just isn't as user friendly for people as Windows and OS X are. That was absolutely true, just five years ago. But a lot has changed. There are several Linux flavors specifically designed to look and act like as similar to Windows as possible, for the express purpose of exposing long-term Windows users to the beauty of open source. Even aside from those, I would argue that there are open source projects that are actually MORE user friendly than either Windows or OS X. For example, there's the issue of plug-ins, add-ons, whatever you want to call them. Stuff like ActiveX, Java, Flash, etc.. which are distributed free but have never been included with Windows. In the past, you had to install your OS and then either download these extras as you have a need for them, or in the case of a techie like me, have a master disk, with all the extras you need, and install each of them individually. Now we've got distributions like Linux Mint, mentioned above, which is a seperate branch of the Ubuntu project, except that it comes with all these extras bundled and ready to go.. and it's even on a LiveCD so you can check it out and see if you like it before putting it on your hard drive. And then there's Xandros, similar concept, tons of extras, and it'll even install and run many Windows programs under Linux. I would encourage anybody interested to check the new version of LG3D, currently on the front page of distrowatch.com. It'll blow your mind how cool the interface is, the GUI is all Java, 3 dimensional, and it's only like 250Megs, you could run it completely from RAM. it's gonna be awesome. It's not a full distribution yet, but again it's a LiveCD, so who cares? But load it up and I think you'll agree when it's all finished, it'll blow away not just Vista, but OS X, too. screams- Conceptually, I like Ubuntu. I like that they've found a way to ship free CDs to anyone that wants them, and they were pioneers in starting the LiveCD movement. Unfortunately, the technology has grown by leaps and bounds, and they have not kept up. It's not the most user friendly to begin with, and their concept was 1 cd for LiveCD another for the Install. Now we can do both these things on a single CD, and in fact there are websites like linux-live.org that can help someone to make any distribution into a Live CD. I just got a few copies of Edubuntu in the mail yesterday, and look forward to installing and checking that out (no LiveCD), and possibly passing on copies to local Childrens' museums, schools, etc.. if it's good. For hardware issues, I'm not sure what hardware you've had problems with, Llywen(or when), but I don't have any. I've got USB thumbdrives, digital cameras, scanners, printers, USB media-readers, a Compact-Flash-to-IDE adapter, and they work fine, as long as I'm in a full distribution. I do like the microdstributions, I'm on DSL (Darn small Linux) right now (Full OS =50Meg), and I like Puppy Linux as well (70Meg), but I dont expect those to pick up every odd piece of hardware. It works as a workstation, which is the point. I would say for hardware support, PCLinuxOS is a good choice. I downloaded the PCLOS Supergamer, just to check how good the 3D games could run as a LiveCD, but ended up using it quite a bit because of the superb hardware recognition. <Screams> >are you sure you're up on your ubuntu news. the dvd i had ran ubuntu live and installed it, and it's only one disc. i still think it's much easier to download it. i downloaded the ubuntu livecd when i screwed up my motherboard, and i was able to install it from the livecd i downloaded. maybe you're thinking of a previous version? <ME> I 'm sure it is a previous version. They don't mail out the new one till they get rid of all the disks from the previous one. And I always figure why bother d/l'ing if they're going to send it to me? I didn't think the OS itself was that great, personally. I mean, it's solid, and certainly not sub-par or anything, I just thought after running it for the first time that it seemed like a standard mid-range OS. It's not really a COMPLETE desktop like Fedora, OpenSUSE, or Madriva, but it is more full-featured than the mini-distros. The coolest thing about it was the LiveCD.. nothing else jumped out as being better than any other distribution, and like I said a lot has changed. I actually kinda liked the way they had it set up in a way. The LiveCD could be run inside Windows, and showed off some open source programs, Windows versions of traditional Linux programs. Open Office, and GAIM (THE best IM program, IMO, taking Trillian's crown) are must-haves, to me. Just out of curiosity, does the new one (6.something, I assume?) do that? I have 5.10 for 32-bit, 64-bit, and Mac, but the Edubuntu I just got yesterday was 6.06 LTS, and it's a single CD, install only. Seriously, one of yall should download LG3D so we can talk about how awesome it is. https://lg3d-livecd.dev.java.net/Web-Site/Download.html

i do like suse too.