I don't want this to turn into a Windows-Linux debate. I've used Microsoft's OSes from MS-DOS 5.0 to Windows XP Professional and personally like them all but now I'm thinking of a change as a matter of taste. Please don't post "Microsoft would better go to hell!" or "And he shall smite the wicked Linuxers" sort of thing.

I want to install Linux and need help choosing between my current sleek comfortable XP configuration and Linux. I also need to choose a suitable Linux distro. Please post any bit of reason that you think of about these two choices that I've got to make.

The situation follows so:

I'm 19. I've used PCs for 10 years and moved from an occasional "Sim City" gamer to a potential power user and programmer hobbyist. I've learnt BASIC, Pascal, C/C++, Assembly and C# as my tools though I've never become fluent in any of them. Anyway, I can get my program run.

I have a 15 GB and growing MP3 collection that I listen to everyday and am very serious about its being organized. I use WinAMP2, WinAMP3 and their add-ons plus MP3/Tag Studio and UltraTagger to get these done. I occasionally watch movies on my PC and have a big image collection in various formats that I view with ACD Systems ACDSee. Does Linux help me with these?

I do my own image, audio and video editing using Adobe Photoshop, ACD Systems ACDSee, Steinberg WaveLAB, Sonic foundry and Cakewalk Audio FX and applications, Macromedia Flash MX, Swish, 3DStudio MAX, Windows Moviemaker, etc. Does Linux offer everything to perform the same tasks?

I get many of my daily tasks done by Office XP Professional with FrontPage. Does Linux give me the option to get these tasks done?

I use Adobe Acrobat Reader, Microsoft Reader, Microsoft HTML Help, Microsoft Notepad and WordPad and Word, Helpware FAR, etc to read and make eBooks out of the stuff I can gather and have a fairly large collection of eBooks in various formats. Does Linux give me an option to read and edit them and expand my collection?

I use Borland Turbo C++ v3.0, Microsoft QuickBasic Extended v7.0, Borland Turbo Pascal v7.0, Microsoft Assembler v5.0 and Borland Turbo Assembler v4.0 to build my MS-DOS programs. Does Linux offer a good set of tools for programming in these languages and getting them run? What about the available IDEs? Are there good debuggers for Linux, like Borland Turbo Debugger and Microsoft CodeView for MS-DOS?

I use Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 and Microsoft Visual Studio .NET to build and run my very small proggies. Recently I've made my way into C# and have appreciated it very much because it is capable of reflecting the programmer's human logic very well and at the same time make the thing work. Does Linux offer sophisticated development platforms? Are there any IDEs capable of visual UI design and code generation?

I know there is the GNU C++ Compiler for Linux and then there is Python for designing visual front-ends but I didn't find them, from what I read, comparable to the development tools available for Microsoft OSes.

I'm not a game freak but love to play particular renown games like Starcraft, Warcraft (I've played Warcraft2, Warcraft2 BNE, Warcraft2: Beyond The Dark Portal Expansion and Warcraft3), Sim games (All of SimCity versions), LBA2, Red Faction, Unreal (not the Tournament only the original Unreal), etc. Does Linux run these games? If not, do Linuxers offer similar games?

I surf the Web and download things frequently. There are many fancy pages with Flash movies, Java applets, ActiveX controls, etc. Are there any good browsers (no Netscape please, I hate it) and download managers for Linux? Are Linux browsers plug-in enabled? What about cookies?

Again, I know about VMWare for Linux and WINE but I'm particularly suspicious about any emulators or cross-platform solutions.

My previous experience with Linux has been a very short period with RedHat v5 and SuSE Linux. I couldn't get the X server shipped with SuSE utilize my former video card which was S3 Trio 64V2/DX 86C775/785 with 1 MB onboard memory, although I found the exact driver out the 3 CD SuSE bundle. The driver was buggy. I guess because its programmer couldn't access the right hardware specification for the hardware for which she/he has written the driver or perhaps she/he has tested the driver only on her/his own computer.

My PC's spec follows so:

1. AMD Athlon 1.2 GHz Processor
2. ASUSTek A7Pro Motherboard w/ 1 AGP/AGP Pro and 5 PCI slots
3. VIA Apollo KT-133 chipset
4. 384 MB SD-RAM
5. nVIDIA RIVA TNT2 M64 video card with 32 MB on AGP slot with 64 MB graphics aperture size
6. Creative SBPCI Vibra 128 sound card
7. Maxtor D740X-6L 60 GB ATA Hard Disk supporting ATA 133 (UDMA modes 5-6)
8. ASUSTek 40x CD-ROM Drive
9. LG 24x 10x 40x CD-R CD-RW Writer
10. Diamond SupraExpress 56e Pro Modem
11. Genius NetScroll+, two buttons, one wheel, the wheel can be pressed to act as the middle button

This configuration works well, not very well only well, with my XP installation. I may get some upgrades sooner or later.

Is Linux able to recognize all these hardware? Is it able to utilize them? Does it use their full features? Will it do this faster than Windows XP? Is it more reliable?

At last, if I choose to go to Linux, what do I have to do for a full migration, including OS, filesystem, storage and applications? (I know where to get Linux and how to install it but need to know, for example, how to import my MP3s from my NTFS partitions to Linux).

1. For Boulderhead:

Well, I could foresee possible incompatibilities but I'm specifically searching for good Linux equivalents to the applications I use with Windows. Anyway, thank you!

2. For Artman:

Setting up a dual boot PC is very easy and a very common practice. However, if I want to use Windows for all of my tasks then why bother installing Linux? I want a full migration to experience a new platform. I really don't know what rationale makes people use dual boot systems. Windows XP and Linux seem to be equivalently powerful OSes except for Windows' ease of use and Linux's networking reliability. I don't want to use my PC as a gateway or server and it seems Linux is far behind in desktop use then Windows XP would be the right choice but I still want to experience the new platform to see what it has to offer.

3. For everyone:

I visited http://www.linux.org yesterday and saw only a BIG propaganda against Microsoft without a single true reason. They said Linux is the best and Windwos is the worst, why? No reason. There wasn't a single clue to guide me in my migration or even a comparison table to show that Linux is as good as Windows for desktops. They said Linux is amazing for servers and they were right but then they conclude that Linux is the best for desktops without an intervening logical step, they just jump into what they want to conclude.

I couldn't find a package for Linux as useful as Microsoft Office XP neither on the net nor in local computer stores - these stores are not sophisticated ones but at least present what is most useful. Or a good image viewer like ACDSee or a good MP3 player like WinAMP3. If there are no good applications for Linux, how can I use it? Should I re-write everything that has been written for Windows?

And there are a million Linux distros that I can't even figure out their difference. Which distro do you suggest?

Please read the first post thoroughly and then post.

quote:

---

how to import my MP3s from my NTFS partitions to Linux.

---

I would suggest putting your MP3s onto a CD-R or CD-RW and just copy from the cd to your linux partition or simply run them from the cd.

Other options include: (1) find and install an NTFS driver to your linux OS. (2) copy to another pc over network and back. (3) make a third partition that both OSes can read and copy your MP3s there.

quote:

---

Is Linux able to recognize all these hardware? Is it able to utilize them? Does it use their full features? Will it do this faster than Windows XP? Is it more reliable?

---

(1)You will have to check with each manufacturer's web site and download the appropriate driver if available, or look at your floppies/CD-ROMs and see if there is a linux directory somewhere, probably under a driver directory.
(2) Maybe
(3) Maybe
(4) Maybe
(5) Maybe

Hope that helps.

quote:

---

Setting up a dual boot PC is very easy and a very common practice. However, if I want to use Windows for all of my tasks then why bother installing Linux? I want a full migration to experience a new platform. I really don't know what rationale makes people use dual boot systems. Windows XP and Linux seem to be equivalently powerful OSes except for Windows' ease of use and Linux's networking reliability. I don't want to use my PC as a gateway or server and it seems Linux is far behind in desktop use then Windows XP would be the right choice but I still want to experience the new platform to see what it has to offer.

---

The reason you would want to do this, is so that you can continue to have the functionality your familar with in windows while you learn how to work with linux. Linux is a pain in the ass. It can be a headache, but once you get it setup how you want it, nothing MS produces can compete.

That said, I'll not make anymore MS vs Linux comments. You probably know my stance.

Windows and MS almost have a monopoly. They are essentially dominant over IBM/PC compatible software. To my knowledge, there isn't another OS that can run IBM/PC compatible software. Windows is essentiall at this point in time in some of the things that interest you.

Linux is an excellent programming OS. You should really like it for that reason if you are interested in programming. There are programs out there such as Wine that lets you run Windows software on Linux machines.

It is difficult to find Linux related software in computer stores. I've had my most luck at Service Merchandise, Comp USA, and bookstores. There is actually an excellent office suite that is supposed to rival functionality of Office Xp. I think it is called Star Office.

My personal favorite distrib of linux to date is Mandrake with KDE desktop. It gives you a windowish feel, and fairly easy to use considering it is linux. Of course you can find any distrib of linux free for download at www.linuxiso.org

Why do you go through all that trouble organizing mp3s? I've been collecting mp3's since the format was created. I do it the same way I've always handled it. In windows, I use Windows Explorer. Its not hard to maintain a mp3 collection, in any OS. You don't need special software to do it. Example of my collection

d:
d:\multimedia
d:\multimedia\Music
d:\multimedia\Music\Full Albums
d:\multimedia\Music\Singles
d:\multimedia\Music\Soundtracks

Of course, you can set it up however you like. It also takes a little bit of effort, but not alot. I even take it a step further passed Full Albums by separating the individual genres I have.

This method of organizing could be done on a macintosh if you wanted, so it would work for Linux.

Oh ya,

WOOOO Linux RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hehe...

1. For J-Man:

I searched for the drivers for my hardware in RedHat's HCL. Most of it wasn't on the list and many listed devices were only supported with generic drivers.

2. For megashawn:

Well, seems a dual boot system is not a really bad idea. I'll perhaps have to try it.

With organizing MP3s I meant setting their tags, ID3v1 and ID3v2, putting lyrics into them and sorting them in playlists. I organize the files in an Artist\Album folder manner but that is not my concern.

And a question:

What can I get of Linux that isn't ready at hand with Windows? Are there Linux-only features improving a home user's experience?

3. For voyeur:

I've asked everyone to avoid Windowns-Linux debate but can't help asking:
"What makes people say they hate Microsoft but long for their next release?"

I think the propaganda around Linux (yeah, Linux rumbles when Windows is creeping up but then Windwos wins!) is, well, propaganda. No one can deny Microsoft's contribution to the computer scene especially home users and PCs. At the time when IBM predicted very low sales for PCs, Bill Gates dreamed of PCs on every desktop. He has been devoted to making his dream come true and that deserves respect.

quote:

---

What can I get of Linux that isn't ready at hand with Windows? Are there Linux-only features improving a home user's experience?

---

Well, for starters:
1) An entire community of free software programmers, including source codes, binarys, all the goods. The GPL license I believe.
2) As a result of the above, a slew of programs to do almost anything you could imagine needing to do with a computer.
3) Multiple Desktops; as in you have a little section of your task bar, and you can open multiple programs, then switch to another blank desktop to work on other tasks. For example, you could have on desktop dedicated to you mp3 operations; another desktop for whatever program you may be writing, another for browsing the internet, and so on all the way up to 16 switchable desktops
4) Not only is linux a multitasking OS, but it is also a Multiuser OS. You could build a linux machine and setup less powerful computers to login to linux just as if you we at your machine, creating a small, simple network.
5) Windows emulation is not a far fetched dream. Especially if you do some research and learn to convert your favorite windows progs so they work in an emu such as WINE
6) Stability. I don't think there is another OS for the price you pay for linux ($0-$80) that comes near competing. I know personally, my computer stayed up and running for over 1 month, with hardly any loss of resources. I've read accounts of Linux machines staying up for nerely half a year, and I'm sure this number has been climbing since I read it.
7) Almost kind of an answer to your question to Voyeur. Linux has recently became about taking the power away from bill gates. As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft pretty much has the market cornered on IBM compatible software. This means, if you want to go play the newest version of Splinter Cell, you need a windows machine to do it. Bill Gates has wormed himself into a position in which he can only make more money. It is also quite apparent that is what his dreams have been from day 1. If he could have become a multibillionaire selling peanuts, he would have.

I for one completly disagree with his ethics and the things he's done to get where he is. You do relize when Bill sold MS-DOS to IBM, DOS was not actually the property of Microsoft. After IBM payed him millions, he went and purchased it from a person they knew for $50,000. Most the ideas that went into windows came from macintosh, which in turn I believe came from XEROX.

Basically, Microsoft has all but created a monopoly. Linux, essentially a free OS, is providing routes in which the monopoly will crumble and open up the possibility of every single person having a computer and afford the luxurys of it.

I guess another point would be its portability; that is, its ability to be installed on a wide range of computers. For instance, there is a version of linux availible for the Ps2 and the Xbox. Bill's really pissed about the latter.

In short, Microsoft Windows is much to the computer world as the Ford Escort is to the auto world. It gets the job done, at quite a loss of effiecency, breaks down alot, likes to spit and sputter, and is way overpriced for what you get.

1. For megashawn:

This is really turning into the Windows-Linux sort of thing. Anyway, let it go on.

1 and 2. Freeware is not limited to Linux. There is a plethora of freeware for Windows. Applications with high prices are those suitable for professional tasks. I don't think it unfair to ask for money when one's offering something that can make money. Steinberg WaveLAB is an expensive tool but it is a sophisticated one as well and can be adequate for someone needing professional quality audio-engineering; she/he will pay a few hundred USD for something that will work in place of the hardware which costs many thousands.

3. Multiple desktops are, in fact, unnecessary. How many running tasks can I have for which to need 16 desktops? By the way, desktop managers for Windows are all around. There are even desktop managers that are integrated with the driver package for a specific hardware, for example nVIDIA nView Desktop Manager for all nVIDIA graphics cards for which Detonator drivers are used.

4. Windows XP offers the same facility with Remote Desktop. Besides, I have only one desktop PC and no notebook computers. This service both in Windows XP and Linux is of no use to me. I don't think many people, around the world not only in the US, have more than one PC at home if any.

5. Why do Linuxers need to emulate Windows? Isn't that there are no equivalently productive applications for Linux as there are for Windows? Why don't Blizzard Entertainment make their very successful WarCraft work natively on Linux? Isn't that Linux is far behind in supported hardware? Isn't that Linux supports most of high-end hardware only with generic drivers that use scarcely half of the hardware's features?

6. Well, Linux is free and that's OK. Its stability is a fact but how can you deny Windows XP's stability? I never have had my PC on for more than 24 hours because I'm an ordinary user that means I turn the PC on, use it for some hourds and then turn it off till the next day. I have to admit that Windows 9x was a true hell even with my manner of usage but Windows XP is different. All the time I've used it there hasn't been a single crash, everything goes just normal even after using a number of heavy applications. Memory management is no more a problem, Windows claims back all the lost memory in time. By the way, I saw a Windows-Linux-Solaris comparison table in Bill McCary's book "Learning Debian GNU/Linux", the table showed that Windows NT has a smaller downtime compared to Linux; the table entries went so:

------------------Linux------------------Windows NT--------------------Solaris
Downtime------Very low----------As low as 30 mins/week---------Very low

About the MS-DOS story, I've heard another version that says Bill Gates and Paul Allen made MS-DOS together and there was no such thing as Bill Gates doing such an apparently immoral act. Do you have evidence for what you're claiming? Or this story is only part of the propaganda around Linux?

Microsoft's approach to software has been a commercial one but there is no reason to presupposedly think of a commercial approach as a bad thing.

It is a common practice among losers of the market wars to relate their failure to factors other than their being unable to cope with the market. They accuse the winners of being immoral although they could be as bad as their rivals if they had won the game.

I've never seen Microsoft's products containing the least bit of an opposition to using Linux. They simply ignore Linux. The Linuxers, however, are always talking of Microsoft's being the evil in software industry. Which of the two mannres is immoral? Ignorance or lying? Isn't that Linux is mainly made around opposing Microsoft and the other big ones?

The hippie movement was against the fixed trends and the corrupt old ones but it lacked the wisdom to see the benefits. Linux seems to be of the same kind. Linuxers advertise free software, information for everyone and access for everyone but when it comes to practice the rules of market which are strictly logical wash away all those claims. Again, good software is sold for often high fees even if it is made for the free Linux.

Opposing the big old one won't go far. If Linux is better, it has to show it so that everyone can understand. Linux must be able to prove its superiority even for me, an ordinary user. The Linux community have to prove their superiority without talking of Microsoft's failures and faults. Linux should be a separate affair not only an opposition to the big old one. Such oppositions won't last long becasue they can't follow the strictly logical rules of this world.

I can work around or with most of these problems because I have used the different operating systems so long but the average person is completely at the mercy of the operating system because of the things I stated. There are other things too but I am beating a dead mouse here.

1. For voyeur:

Microsoft can't be judged by their Windows 3.1 although it was a real hit at its own time. They've made so much progress. Windows XP is really stable. As I wrote to megashawn I've never experienced a crash with Windows XP.

From 1990 to 1999 Linux has grown from Linus Torvald's 64 KB kernel to a 10 MB kernel. MS-DOS 5.0 had a resident portion of many times 64 KB and Windows since the 3.1 has never been smaller than a few megs. The growth in kernel size is a result of new features and higher complexity in the OS. Higher complexity always means lower reliability as it is much harder to maintain a neat structure in the code when its gets more and more complicated. Let's wait until Linux kernel comes near the size of a Windows kernel and then judge whether it works better or not.

It is clear that you can make an Igloo out of nothing but ice. I promise you it will be reliable and safe; no earthquake can kill you in there and it takes a few hours to set up another Igloo. However, when it comes to the real tasks in the real world you can't go on living in an Igloo in a world that grows more complex everyday. You have to build something as big as the Empire State building and it is obvious that it will be no more as reliable and safe as the good little Igloo.

As for the Windows' visuals, it seems you're unaware of its capabilities. Just right-click your desktop, choose properties, go to appearance page tab, everything is at your hand: resize the scroll bars, change the fonts, change the colors, change everything. Windows XP even goes further. Most of its visual elements are skinnable through Visual Styles feature. You can get free styles from http://www.themexp.org. TGTSoft has made three applications that ease the tasks of resource creation, design and installation of Windows XP visual styles: StyleXP, StyleBuilder and ResBuilder. StyleXP and StyleBuilder are commercial but ResBuilder is freeware. These applications are not must-have for using Visual Styles but help a lot. Nevertheless, you can download and manually install styles for your Windows XP without any third party software. There are thousands of these styles on the Internet and all for free. As another resource for Windows styles and other modifications visit http://www.deskmod.com.

Moreover, there are many shell variations for Windows that can change a Windows desktop to anything imaginable, some examples are Stardock DesktopX, NextSTEP and HoverDesk.

And then you call Windows unaccessible? I read a description of the procedure that must be gone through for accessing a CD-ROM from a Linux text-based shell (more precisely from bash, the easiest and most common shell). I found the procedure totally insane. Put it in there, mount it this way under that resource identifier, check if it is mounted under /mnt/cdrom, if not go check /dev/sda1 then /dev/sda2 and on. This description is from the "Linux Newbie Administrator Guide" which was mainly biased towards Linux. With Windows, and even MS-DOS, you just put the CD-ROM in the drive and switch to the drive; is that what you call unaccessible?

Windows navigation is really streamlined towards accessiblity. Everything is where it has to be. You click a big shiny button and you choose whatever you need in a click. Everything has text labels on it, there are tooltips, there is an ever-present help system, there is audio-visual notification for everything, there is the Active Desktop. What do you want in addition? Does Linux offer half of these?

You complain about background tasks, well, tell them to go away if you really don't need them. None of these tasks is working in vain. What are these tasks? Messenger Service, Task Scheduler, Alerter Service, Application Management, ClipBook, COM+ Event System, the firewall you yourself have installed and a bunch of other services. Did the programmers work day and night to load your PC with junk? The cost of service is processing time. Throw away all the services and use all your processor's ability but then you have to handle everything happening to your computer with your own hands.

Microsoft could charge its customers just the same fee and do half of this work and benchmark double speed without most of its customers ever understanding this. Microsoft, however, hasn't done this; they've worked hard to make all these services and the real nonsense is that everyone steps in, takes a look at Windows without understanding a bit of its complexity and says "Oh! This damned thing! Ah! It made my PC run slower". Microsoft's programmers are not 6-year-old kids messing with people's computers; they're sophisticated computer specialists whose power and intelligence can't be ignored. This big group hasn’t been working hard to deceive their customers. They could earn the same money with drugs, weapons, alcohol, cigars, etc but they've chosen to be creative and to make what can help all the people around the world. Doesn't their choice deserve respect?

I've never denied Linux's (and other OSes') features and its superiority in certain computational categories but I also believe that Windows is not a big deception. It is the result of hard work and even devotion.

It is even good that people have to pay for Windows, well, it will be one of the few things that really deserve to be paid for. People pay for drugs, weapons, cigars, alcohol, wars, corrupt politicians, nineteen-year-old stupid singers calling themselves musicians, narcissist charity organizations, the biased Amnesty International, the ever-liar press, ad banners and thousands of other things meaningless to all human necessities. Let there be less money to be paid for these, let people pay for something that involves creative human work and no suffering of the others.

I did not intend on making this into a debate about which is better. That is a matter of opinion really. I can think of plenty of reasons for multiple desktops, but thats me.

Infact, through your response it seems that you do infact wish to make a linux VS windows debate. Your response to my points all involved a "Well Windows can do this..."

Not all hardware is supported yet. Generic drivers work quite well for me. I've ran quake 3 for linux, an it performs better then the windows version.

Sure there is freeware for windows. Usually a stripped down version of a payware program, or code that was converted from *nix to windows. Also, there is freeware software availible for linux that rivals the quality of very expensive software, such as you were referring to.

I can't think of the exact name of the 3d modeler which is freeware, but I've read many accounts of how it is better the 3d studio max, lightwave, etc.

Your a programmer and you can't think of a use for multiple desktops? Must be simple programming?

quote:

---

About the MS-DOS story, I've heard another version that says Bill Gates and Paul Allen made MS-DOS together and there was no such thing as Bill Gates doing such an apparently immoral act. Do you have evidence for what you're claiming? Or this story is only part of the propaganda around Linux?

---

Uhh, ya, its called "The pirates of Sillicon Valley" It was a movie about the account of Microsoft and Macintosh's rise to power. It was based on facts.

Uhm, sure Microsoft is dominating on the market. Linux is not even a company. There are many companys, such as Mandrake, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, all who produce there own version of linux. Each version is availible 100% free.

I got more for ya later, but it is now apparent your a mere MS lover. You've wanted this to brew like this from the get go, admit.

1. For megashawn:

quote:

---

Your a programmer and you can't think of a use for multiple desktops? Must be simple programming?

---

I'm not a programmer. I do program PCs but that's a hobby. Since when I started learning BASIC I've written many small programs; some as homework, some as personal curiosity and some for the sole joy of it. My largest program was a BASIC program in few thousand lines I wrote along with my friend when I was 15. We called it LCAD for Logic Circuit Analysis and Design. Using LCAD you could make small circuits with gate symbols and then let the program calculate the outputs based on given set of inputs. My other achievement (heh!) was an image processing library in Assembly that performed basic DSP (s for signal not for sound ) such as contrast enhancement and edge detection; I wrote the library while I was learning Assembly.

Anyway, most of my programs were written for MS-DOS as it was the only thing I knew then. A bit too late, I started to figure out how to program for Windows. As a consequence, I started with a basic understanding of API and then, whooshed into .NET programming. My one and only serious work with .NET has been a three-body gravity simulator using Euler method for numerically solving differential equations (that is t' = t + dt where dt is supposed to be infinitesimal but is implemented as a small number like 0.000001).

Multiple desktops can be used as sort of customization (for a single user or a group of them) or for multi-display systems or for very busy ones. That's all I know of multiple desktops; is there any other use to them?

quote:

---

I got more for ya later, but it is now apparent your a mere MS lover. You've wanted this to brew like this from the get go, admit.

---

Well, "lover" is not a good word for that, better said, "fond of Microsoft" (is that just a coincidence that MS stands for Multiple Sclerosis?)

Honestly said, on the first post I really meant to know more of Linux and was really intrigued with the idea of moving to Linux, a whole new universe. I have many times suffered Windows' failures and wanted to see if Linux was really better. There also was a feeling that I had reached the limit for an ordinary user and it will be necessary to move to some advanced platform where I can gain new experience as a user (while as a hobby-programmer Windows offers a helluva a lot to learn).

In the course of posts, however, I read a few articles and book chapters about Linux and felt like they all were revolving around opposition to Microsoft. They made arguments like this: "See, Windows dies there, Linux rulez!" like Linux was mainly made to show that Windows has problems. This was obvious to me from long before that Windows could be a lot better and they claimed: "And it is because Microsoft wants only millions and not good software!"; an argument which as an apparent fallacy. Microsoft is surely seeking profit but not at the price of quality; its leaders are technocrats who would work hard to make their product better. If Windows is so bad, that's because of some problem other than Microsoft engineers being illiterate. It is perhaps because Windows has to be both fancy and efficient while Linux is (although it is claimed that any user can go around with Linux) not bound to this rule; it can focus on efficiency waiting for later progress which will make it fancy, too.

Nevertheless, this wave of opposing Microsoft when there was no need to do so made me feel a bit uncomfortable with others saying: "Hey dude! Linux rulez! Huh?" and the outcome was what you read.

I apologize for breaking the rule I myself had set. I'd better write these in a topic with the title "Why Microsoft rulez?"

Fortunately enough (for me, of course!), I really long to learn more about anything and Linux in particular but I also want to hear something unbiased and clear from common fallacies used to deceive children under 6 years old.

Your listing of Linux features is indeed a good and unbiased one and your patience deserves salutation.

By the way, what is the problem with a MS Lover that reduces her/him down to a "mere" MS Lover?

2. For everyone:

Please read my previous posts.