Funny you should say that ...

I've never had to explicitly install an environment in any of the distros
I've used, in a full install it was always there. Unlike windows, where
no such thing comes with the OS. And what's even better, I didn't have
to pay for one, either.


And the "work" required before I can watch a Movie in Linux is well worth
the time; at least it won't stutter and spit on the same hardware as it does
under XP.



Cheers,
Tink

For once, could someone take a System76 computer and install Windows XP on it, take a Dell computer and install Mepis on it, and then complain about what Linux "can't" do that Windows can?

Speech recognition in window vista:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ

Alot of the time it's said that Linux is harder for the average Joe to operate. Average Joe is often defined as a user that just want to type up a document in a word processor, surf the web, maybe burn a CD etc etc. In other words Average Joe user is the quintessential end user. He is also the largest majority of users there are. The rest of the users is a smaller percentage and they range from intermediate to sys admin guru.

Operating systems and ease of use is somewhat of a moot point for a power user so it's not really a main focus in the debate of Windows vs. Linux, because for the highly proficient user, often many other OSes, like Linux among many, is the clearly more ideal choice due to it's flexibility and sheer power.

These days, I find ease of use for average Joe user to be less of an excuse to use as mark against Linux. I'll tell you why.

Average Joe user doesn't know how to install an OS. Not even Windows. Much less even know what an OS is. Their understanding of what a computer is doesn't go much beyond they have this "magic" box that they put "stuff" on and can do "stuff" on. That "stuff" is things like word processing, surfing the web etc. A system running KDE or Gnome, doesn't make doing such "stuff" any harder than windows does. The only difference is that the interfaces are superficially slightly different. But here's where a more advanced user that believes Windows is more end-user friendly than Linux starts to think about how much different the learning the curve for Linux is. They're right in that it's learning curve is steeper for system administration. But in all honesty can a person really say that it's hard to just merely operate common applications in a Linux desktop environment than it is in Windows? Yes, it may be more complicated to get said application up and running properly, but people are forgetting that Average Joe User doesn't do such things. They have such things already done for them prior to the computer being put in their hands.

The thing that has to be remembered, is while Joe Average User, is going to be up the creek and lost if he has to reconfigure something or reinstall the OS, he's still up the creek with Windows also. The real different between Windows and Linux, is that Windows usually comes pre-installed and configured on a computer that Joe Average User bought. If he hoses the system there's more Joe intermediate users to help him out. Or he can take it down to the shop to have them reinstall it for him.

The real issue is not ease of use. Windows seems easier because it is what majority of people are accustomed to. It seems easier because there is larger base of it. It seems easier because one has to unlearn many of the bad habits they've learned with it in order to get far with Linux.

I would venture to say that if Linux had the mindshare and Windows didn't, and that most people grew up learning Linux instead of Windows, the general perception would probably be that Windows isn't as "user-friendly" as Linux. All these perceptions come from how our minds are conditioned and trained and it's all relative.

If you really think of it, the general perception of windows being "user-friendly" is more of a result of it's monopoly as a platform than really how easy it is to use. Configuration may be different story.

Linux may seem overwhelming at times. That is because it is so versatile and has tons and tons of options. However, to get Linux to merely do what Windows is capable of, isn't really that hard. Linux doesn't really get harder until you are getting it do beyond what Windows is capable of. So if you look at Linux as a whole and Windows as a whole, of course Linux is more complex since it has so many more options.

Have you noticed that linux users seem to have a lot more problems than Windows users? I've noticed that people who can set up linux can usually run Windows safely and securely. Another thing is that linux seems to break a lot easier. For example, editing the xorg.conf file.

No, I haven't noticed that. I have noticed that a lot of people converting from windows to linux have a lot of problems because linux is NOT Windows and things are not done the same way, but newbies expect them to be the same.

I might agree with you that linux guru's are working on (solving) more self-induced problems than with Windows, but it's mostly because they're trying to do something out of the box and take advantage of the tremendous flexibility of linux. Try taking XP and making it fit on an embedded 512MB compact flash card...

As written hundreds of thousands of times, linux and windows (and Mac, BSD, unix, solaris, etc) all have their pros and cons...

Try running games or using surround sound on linux. Try running any professional application on linux. Try getting hardware to work that doesn't offer a linux driver. Try using any media creation software on linux to do what you can do with media creation software on Windows or OS X. Try asking a 50 year old to install some software only available by compiling the source code in linux and ask them if they would prefer double clicking and hitting next. The only thing you can respond with is try running windows safe and securely and honestly it's not that hard. I've gotten infected maybe 2x and that was my own stupidity at the time, I was only 9. The fact is that people who would be willing to try something new such as linux can usually run windows safely.

For example i've been listening to the Linux Link Tech Show, which is a podcast with 4 full time linux users. Now I only listen to keep up on the current state of linux and what i've noticed is every episode they have a problem with linux. The funny thing is they are on episode 151 and are still complaining. What is even funnier is that all the problems they have had, I have never had in Windows.

Just because I have been using computers longer than you have been using pull ups, doesn't mean I'm in love with the clicky click thing.
Please go troll somewhere else!

Do it all the time. Depends on the game. Try running a game made for Mac on a Windows box. Or one made for linux that doesn't have a Windows build. Shocker, but it doesn't work... Don't use surround sound so I can't comment.
Do it all the time. Depends on the application. See above...
Try getting hardware to work that doesn't offer a windows driver (like an old combo sound modem card that only had a windows 95 driver). Ever install Windows on a machine where you don't have the driver disk? How's it function? Linux is actually pretty robust when handling unknown hardware. The VESA driver works on a large variety of unknown and known graphics cards and still give you a decent resolution. External hardware modems work out of the box, where as windows, you have to load a driver.
Everything I typically do works just as well, if not better in linux. Granted, I'm not making Wedding Videos or anything like that...
My grandmother is 72 and I installed linux for her. Works perfectly, no problem (Debian Sarge). She has only had to compile one program from source and thought it was "Neat." I had to talk her through it over the phone, but she was perfectly capable. But she does stick mostly to the Debian repositories...
No argument here. People who are good with linux are typically good with any OS and security is a conscious effort. The problem is that those are not the people typically running windows. I'm not even an IT person and I spend at least 2 hours a week helping co-workers get their XP installs running after virus/spyware/malware infections of various degrees. I won't even go into the effort for my in-laws...

Linux may not be right for you, but it wouldn't exist if everyone thought Windows was perfect...

You are now in violation of LQ Rule #1547, SubSection B, Paragraph 6.iii - Willfully posting a Windows vs Linux thread without a certified Troll Licence (licence not valid in Wisconsin)

This thread is now jailed with the rest of the felons in the General forum State Penitentiary "The All New Linux vs Windows MegaSuperThread".

Don't do it again.

I bring up issues I have with linux and get put in "jail" kinda funny...

Another thing is everyone who gets introduced to linux is amazed by all the free open source software. You can get the same amount, if not more on Windows. The only difference is your putting them in an environment where they are almost forced to use open source software. So there are 2 choices for me, install linux again and download some open source software or I could in Windows go download some and also use my commercial software and play my games. The only problem I have with linux is there is no benefit for using it for me. There are however benefits for me using Windows. I will check up on linux now and then, but for now i'm done with this linux discussion. -Good Bye-

This is now post #344 in this thread alone. Why do people posting this sort of thing think they are being original?

The search function is there for a reason, people. If someone can come up with a truly original and rational version of one of these threads, it will stay by itself and not be merged.

I was a Linux user until today, when I threw in the towel. After weeks of trying to get Mepis 3.4.3 to 'play nicely' on my Dell laptop, I loaded Windows XP back onto my computer. Now before you start jumping on my toes, let me just say, I thought Linux was great!, but the countless hours (into the early hours of the morning most of the time) I've spent in forums like this one and on 'Google', looking for answers to my hardware problems, just so I could do the basics, like print, scan and get my laptop to recognise the wireless card are just not worth it. I guess I just don't have the time, or patience to figure out what NDISwrapper is, why I need it, or how to use it. Linux just isn't a true replacement for Windows...yet. If I ever needed validation that I had made the right decision, it was when XP found every single peripheral plugged into my computer, loaded the drivers (or went on the web and found them for me) and I was ready to print, scan and surf the web, without any wires in just a few minutes. Life is back to normal and I've got some serious sleep to catch up on...