TechSpot - PC Technology News and Analysis

I don't know why...

I find XP unintuitive and kind of clunky, bulky, and hefty on system resources now that I have used Ubuntu. I mean, it runs faster than XP, on an ATA-100 Hard drive! :P Now I don't even want to log into Windows unless I want to play TF2 or Starcraft.

BTW, I also find vista boring as well now. If Steam and all of my games worked on Ubuntu, I would soo purge XP.
(I'm posting this in XP, I might restart and go into Ubuntu after this. :P)
Has anyone else felt like this?

Not really for me. I've got ubuntu and xp on an Athlon 64 2800+ and I can boot into ubuntu and get around in it alright, and for most of the crap I do (chat, browse online) its fine. But I fought for quite some time to get Amarok to play mp3s. I'd load up my library and play one and it wouldn't play, although it said it could download whatever it needed and then play mp3s, so I let it do that, restarted Amarok, and got the exact same message. I went through that loop about 5 times before I gave up.

Movie playback is alright, although I haven't tried dvds. I have taken a DVD that I ripped to HD and tried to use a program to convert it to xvid. I did make that work, but linux's background in command line is a real pain to work with, to get anything done in that program you had to really know what switches/parameters to set. This is opposed to something like Handbrake for OS X (which is ported to linux and Windows, but wasn't when I was doing this).

Once you get compiz/beryl you are just dumped on your own. There are hundreds of videos online of people having awesome effects but there is very poor explanation in the configuring to do anything like that. For example my 3d cube effect is for some reason only a sheet, one side is 1 desktop and the other side is another desktop. Where the other 2 desktops are on that I have no idea, and apparently it isn't very intuitive to figure out because I've been through the options a few times.

Command line is more efficient for things, like sudo apt get install whatever is a lot better than going online and finding a website then finding the download page, then downloading and finding the file to install. But that is really the only command line stuff that IS nicer. Reliance on the command line is asking too much for many XP users. I shouldn't have to edit my xorg.conf to get things to work properly. Its getting better with ubuntu allowing you to get restricted video drivers right away.

Networking with Windows computers is much nicer in Ubuntu than any other linux flavor I've tried, but it still isn't perfect. OS X 10.5 sees and handles my Windows shares perfectly, behaves just like it does in Windows looking at Windows shares. In Ubuntu I see all the 'hidden' shares too. I don't need to see C$, D$, E$, ect for all my partitions. But at least Ubuntu can see those, I've recently given PCLinuxOS2007 a shot and OpenSUSE and both of them require you to enable and set up samba, which is still something I struggle to do properly despite tutorials online. That brings me to another thing, there are 5000 sites that have what you want to do, but they are never the exact OS you are running. Like there will be a tutorial for exactly what you want to do but it will be for Ubuntu 6.10 or something.

So, no, I don't dislike XP after using Ubuntu. Its not a bad OS for doing things, and I really think I could give a computer with Ubuntu on it to my grandparents that do nothing but check email and deal with digital camera pictures. But to me, a long time Windows user, I just don't feel like I'm doing anything better in Linux than I could in XP.

I guess I do depend on windows for the Media files and such. I Down stuff in windows and copy the files to the Ubuntu Drive in Ubuntu. Also, a lot of my programs that I paid big money ($200 or so) for are in windows and I can't run them with WINE properly. So, I guess for Flash 8, Photoshop, and Steam I need windows (The stuff I usually occupied my time with).

I just recently installed Ubuntu and have not really had time to use it, but it seems like if i got use to it I might like it better then windows, but i need more time to work with it.

i agree.. i love ubuntu but im a huge gamer and linux lacks gaming computability. if ubuntu could run games like windows can id stay with ubuntu. i would duel boot into ubuntu but i have a old 80gb card drive.

of course ubuntu has got "wine and cedega" but for some reason games lag alot more on linux than windows for me.

Then again wine is annoying, you have to spend 50+ years trying to get it working properly without the game exploding in your face.

I find that I am much happier having choices. I now triple boot my laptop (Leopard/Vista/Ubuntu) and love the fact that I can use whichever OS fits my current need. I do default to Ubuntu, though, and currently prefer that distro over any of the others I've used. I haven't run into ANY problems with it and everything just seems to work (though it might take a little tweaking.) I even got World of Warcraft to work properly within Wine and that's the only game I'd play on this laptop anyway so I'm happy on that front as well. I use Rhythmbox for my audio playback and VLC for my video playback in linux and the only thing I have been itching to try and haven't done yet is to see of the optical out on my Macbook Pro works in Ubuntu. Steve and Co. released drivers on the windows side that just don't provide that functionality and it's very upsetting for me.

I don't really use Ubuntu on my primary anymore, I deleted the partition recently. I always have trouble playing MPEG4 video in Ubuntu, which sucks since most of my video is MPEG4 or M4V. Also I can't get a better driver for my onboard sound in Ubuntu, just the generic ALSA one. :P I do have Ubuntu on my least powerful PC's though. Like my Dimension 4300 Dell. (It still uses regular SDRAM even though it has a pentium 4.)

I also have it on my Dell D600 because I was having video driver problems.

I have Ubuntu installed on a secondary system so that I could learn how to use it. The OS runs great and is very easy to use but when I need to get something done I boot up my XP rig. The only things I use the Ubuntu distro for are browsing the web and listening/ripping mp3s. The system in which it is installed on also uses PC-100 SDRAM and is only about 1Ghz pentium 3 coppermine. The motherboard is crap HP but I have some decent hard drives hooked up. I'm basically using the system as a backup and a place to store my files.

I completely dislike Windows now that I have had Ubuntu for a few months. I built a computer for myself and one for my wife, each with two hard drives--one for Windows and one for Ubuntu. I almost use Ubuntu exclusively. The only reason I use Windows is to use Photoshop or Illustrator for some graphic design jobs, but I can bring my Photoshop files into the excellent GIMP, and I can bring my Illustrator files into Inkscape, although it doesn't bring in the layers. I don't have the persnickety problems in Ubuntu that Windows has, and it loads up a heck of a lot faster. Installing Ubuntu is a very quick 15 minutes; Windows takes an hour and a half! Also, my computer runs at about 85 degrees in Ubuntu, 95 degrees in Windows. The processor will likely last longer in Ubuntu. Ubuntu is easy to navigate. It imports all of Microsoft Office's documents. It's a wonder more people don't get on it. As a graphic designer and semi-geek, I can say that Ubuntu is a very solid and versatile operating system, and the applications are more than sufficient for the average computer user.

The trick with Photoshop (& PSE) is the adjustment layers. I learned to edit with them, they save memory, are non destructive, and can be organized into clipping groups. Now I find I can't edit effectively without them. So, as much as I deeply loathe M$ and all of it's Imperialist policies, I am dependent and addicted to XP, the great Photoshop enabler.

Yes, Wine allegedly will run PS CS-2, but we're at CS-3, I don't own either one and it still won't run PSE 4, 5, or 6 which I do own.

I do think that it's "fashionable" to desert Windows for Linux, but still a tad impractical. C'mon, there's just a little hint of snobbery in being a full out Linux person, isn't there? Tell the truth.....fess up.....you'll feel better......

I love Gimp, never crashes on me like Photoshop and runs good even on a crappy 1.4GHz Pentium 4 system.

You do understand that if you're trying to run Photoshop on that system, it's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

Well, actually, I was trying to run Photoshop on a Dell E510 with a 2.8GHz Pentium D and 2GB of DDR2-533.

And here I was, trying to let you off the hook by blaming the computer.

I keep Xp on my home computer because my mom and girlfriend use the computer at home but at work I have a hd with vista and one with Ubuntu and have not booted the vista drive for some time

Apparently Intel has no intention of booting Vista...., ever.....!
http://www.techspot.com/news/30634-i...a-upgrade.html

Thats crazy. I assumed that it was such a large company they would have upgraded immediately.....

Anyway, I dislike Ubuntu, for the simple fact that it is VERY incompatable with Dial up Winmodems.

Well, in 2009 the new OS is coming out from Microsoft. So to spend the extra money and time on a OS that's going to be outdated in a few months will not really be a good idea.

Considering how long M$ took to release Vista in all it's "wonder", how do you think the new OS will be with half the development time? I suspect we'll all be singing hymns to Linux by then.