Last message on previous page:
I dunno much about Linux but I'd like to know more. I know that Fedora core is a nice graphical version. If I were to just use basic programs like word programs, spreadsheets, etc. I'd might go the Linux route. But how does it work with modern games? Are most games/programs compatible with it? This is really the only reason I haven't deepy looked into Linux because I don't know what kind of compatibility it has. If someone wants to shed some light, maybe you can convert me! :-)

PS - Ya know what else, ever since I installed Vista (I dual boot), my games in XP are unstable. Don't ask me how that's possible since they are on entirely two different hard drives...But before I installed it BF2 and Company of Heros was fine. Now I get kicked out of BF2 and my comp restarts, and Company of Heros gets an error and shuts down about 20 min into gameplay. What the hell?

Linux is not Windows. Asking this question is like asking, can I run a supercharger V10 with a moped's fuel mix?

Linux has games; you don't buy them in stores, you just download them. Now if you can't be bothered with downloading free games and absolutely need to buy them and go thorugh the install process, then you can try Transgaming's Cedega software to play those Windows games. The software itself isn't free, but considering it's sold at a fraction of the price a Vista Home licence upgrade is sold...

You don't need to stay at toms to learn about linux. Just type linux (or linux game) in Google and read.

Yep.. then you can hear all the rhetoric from Linux users that you could ever care to ..

that's the easy way out: just say, 'all those Linux guys spout off how good linux is but nothing comes out of it'.

Well if you want to play Windows games under Linux, register with the Wine mailing list: there, they talk about Windows on Linux. You can also roam the Transgaming fora.

If you're still not happy, go waste $400 on Vista Ultimate, $250 on a graphics card just fast enough to run Aero, $200 on 2GB of ECC RAM (yup, Vista recommends it) and waste days installing all these - just to run yesterday's games.

Oh please.. you know none of that is required. Vista RC1 ran just the same as XP (performance wise) on my current XP machine.

I'm not taking the easy way out. As I've said before, I use SuSE Linux. I use Wine AND Cedega. Both are ALMOST solutions. But, as always, I find myself migrating back to my WinXP box because the software runs better on it and that's where THE software exists.

As for 'how good' Linux is, it's a moot point. It does not offer me anything over what Windows offers me now. I am speaking as an everyday user of Linux. You can extoll the virtues of Linux all day long, but at the end of it all, spending any time or effort migrating to that platform (entirely) offers me no advantage.

I mean, honestly, if I were to ditch Windows entirely, other than having a FREE alternative, what have I gained? My LAN/VPN are as secure as any other, so don't try to sell me on security.

The EASY way out is to just constantly trash the main stream OS just because it's main stream. Or better yet, as many other people have done on this thread, call others an advertiser/marketer for Microsoft just because they are happy to use it.

If/when I run Vista it will be on a new machine that comes with Vista. So, the cost factor is irrelevant to me. My current XP machine is ~ 4 years old anyhow.

When will this big Linux revolution occur such that I can earn a LIVING with it? Again, as I have mentioned previously, I am a software engineer/developer focusing on C#/.NET development. This has a lot to do with the fact that EVERY business I deal with uses Windows machines. Until something changes this, if I want to make money I will continue to use Windows.

I am glad to see so many people here are interested to learn more about Linux.

I installed my first Linux a few years back; I uninstalled it 30 minutes later. I had some knowledge in C & Pascal and I though I am "geek enough" to make it work for me... guess what, I was totally lost...

However, I didn't give up, I expanded my knowledge, and less than a year ago I wanted to challenge myself, and installed a Linux. SURPRISE - I didn't need my extended knowledge, basic one was enough... and quite honestly, you don't need that either.

Now I am totally convinced that Linux itself is not the problem. The problem is:
1- Hardware developers that do not support Linux like they should – and the big well known hardware developers are starting to.
2- Games and Software developers should start also selling their games and software in Linux edition, just like Mac and Windows editions.
3- Linux developers should start working out a bit of a more unified package.

There is nothing “geeky” about Linux anymore; it is no longer “Linux to the Geeks” it’s “Linux to the People.” Nowadays, I am honoured to be part of the Linux community, and yes I have a “Live Linux Disk on Key,” and I could finally run Never Winter Nights on Linux…

Surprise surprise, my office desktop runs all on 100% OneSource freeware, that, in case you are wondering, saved me at least 500$.

I agree with some other posters, the cost per feature largely ignores upgrade costs, downtime, technical support time (even if I do it, MY tech support time is of value), software upgrade costs, new rounds of bug patches for the mainsteam bugs (while only more obscure ones remain in XP).

Vista will be more easily estimated in cost per feature after the first couple of service packs have been released and tested, and software vendors have had time to scramble to patch or refuse (to patch, so planning for new software is initiated). Then of course the cost for the new software, and hardware when it turns out some won't support Vista at all.

$200-$500 OS license cost is the least of the issues (cost and time as related too...) about Vista deployment.

In regards to Vista DX10 and DRM:

Is it just me or does it seem like the solution to this (at least for the next couple of years) is to run a dual boot XP / Vista system? Run Vista for gaming (to use DX10) and XP for all media (to avoid stupid DRM). I think that this seems like the best way to go until media starts to require either Vista or the DRM software that comes with it.

*Warning DRM rant*
<rant> I pretty much refuse to use DRM controlled media. The music industry does not support my desired consumer model. I want to be able to download all of the music I want for free and buy the albums for the bands that I really like. This is how things work right now and it is awesome. The amount of music I purchase is directly proportional to the amount of music I download. I own hundreds of CDs, most of which are from bands that I would never have heard of without free internet downloads. I think that the reason the music industry doesn't like that is because I don't necessarily buy what they are marketing, in fact most of the music I own is either indy, or from smaller labels (trustkill, victory, roadrunner, ferret, etc). That being said, I download many movies (mostly because they take too long to get to video) and buy very few (I rarely want to watch a movie more than once). </rant>

You don't have to do that - most chances the good old "Power to the people" movement will find its way releasing nice patches... (for learning only)

Considering that an EULA for an upgrade nullifies that of the previous OS it replaces, to have both XP and Vista on the same machine you need to have a full licence for each

Now, DRM may be built into Vista and not XP, but considering how pervasive the changebrought by a SP is, I wouldn't be surprised if XP SP3 was as tightly controlled DRM-wise than Vista is.

Nope, DRM: be done by Vista, no DRM: use Linux.

In how much time do you suppose games will switch to exclusively Vista? I heard DX9 and 10 are meant to coexist for a long time. Might as well buy a cheap XP on a new build and only buy an Upgrad version of Vista when I /really/ need it some years down the line.

well, it will depend on how fast MS can force developers to use DX10 exclusively... After all, suppporting 2 rendering engines is money...

Of course, some companies just do without by using OpenGL...

I see virtually nothing in Vista that you can't either download as shareware and that Mac didn't do years earlier.

The next major relese of Mac OS, though, will be the nail in Microsoft's coffin. Why? Because the current version runs on Intel processors, and the next will run on non-Apple hardware.

$100. And supports dual-boot for your legacy games. Cleaner, faster, easier to use, crashes less. Requires no major hardware upgrades, and there's no nanny-ware. As it is, I recently installed XP Pro on a machine and spent an hour yanking services out of the OS. One of them is a built-in spyware that is an open door for the government to get into your box anytime it wants. (lsass.exe and a couple of others that are built-in and nearly impossible to remove)

In one day I noticed a constant 5-10% traffic over the net on a clean install of windows with a good firewall running. Even with the ports supposedly blocked(though not in emergency zero activity mode).

That took 15 minutes. Removing Outlook Express/disabling active-x scripting took another 10 minutes. Installing a firewall that blocked all ports by default, a few more minutes...

Removing Windows ability to make logs of everything you do - tougher - 20 minutes.(it creates hidden, even from a DOS boot, files of every site you visit, every email, and so on - probably put there at our government's request). You delete your email in Outlook? It's still there. This is simmilar to how cellphones don't really delete their contents(making the news now) - but Windows has been doing this for years.

(required a Nopix CD boot and manually crippling the hidden files, then cripping the function in windows itself) And by hidden, I mean, yes, hidden from any version of DOS or Windows(though not from a few specific utilities you can download). Really nasty stuff.

Rendering the nanny-ware call-home feature disabled - five more minutes.

Just getting a clean, stable, secure from the outside world setup of XP is daunting.

Vista is going to be ten times worse. Mac, on the other hand, does virtually none of this insanity. If I want to just get online and do normal things other than gaming, it's a total no-brainer decision. If it only costs me $100 and I can keep XP/Win2K/etc running for the few older games I have - on the same box.... DUH.

I value Vista at $0. It's a security and privacy nightmare.