I just snapped. It is over. I hate fucking Microsoft Windows.

I hate the fucking pop-ups, applications, processes, and all of the fucking shit going on in the background.

What are my alternatives for operating systems?

I'm going to look into that. :) Thanks.

I do not have a Mac.

Another alternative is to convert your machine to Linux. There are several different flavors, most are free.

www.apple.com/hardware

Come on, join the family! :hi:

I'm not totally thrilled they made their OS UNIX based, but I understand why.

Windoze makes me want to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger.

Khash.

And the new Intel machines are sweet. You could even run Winblows on it, although I have no idea why someone would want to ruin a Mac with that shit. If you're a student/educator (or if you can find one to bring to the Apple store with you) they have a student/educator discount.

I'm still waiting for OS X to be available for MY computer. And I'm not talking Darwin or FreeBSD. I want all the bells and whistles that the kids with the overpriced hardware get, dagnabbit!

It's completely doable, they just need to stop being bastards about it.

Dell is going to start offereing Mac OS X for PC users, and with the coming of X86 hardware, Mac OS X will (should) currently run on your computer. But trust me, it isn't all its cracked up to be. The backgroud processes are a bitch- and you can't kill them. OS X is also very hard to modify (even though it sometimes needs it).

(Mac users: don't kill me, I'm using OS X myself)

Open source has come a long way! Although if I could afford it I'd get one of the new macs...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=240

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=233

On a Mac, you can run Linux, Windows and Mac OS. And they last forever and ever.

While appreciate the ethusiasm of the Mac community, if you don't want to have to go out and buy a new computer, here are a few options:

Ubuntu
SUSE
Fedora
Mandriva
Mepis
Debian
Knoppix
Gentoo
PCLinuxOS
Slackware
FreeBSD
CentOS

These are all *nix (Linux or BSD) style systems, of course, all with their strengths and weaknesses, some geared toward certain purposes.

For those new to an alternative OS, I'd suggest any of the above except Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, or FreeBSD. (Notable, the current OS X (Mac) is partly based on FreeBSD, but with a much higher ease of use factor.)

Download and burn a LiveCD of something like Knoppix or PCLinux, put it in your CD drive, set your computer to boot from the CD, and play with it. What hooked me on Linux initially was that I did this very thing and spent the next week visiting DU and doing my other online activities using an OS I didn't have to install, that I didn't pay to use, and that existed entirely on one CD I could then put away in a CD-sleeve when I needed to boot back into Windoze. The first step was that I basically stopped using Windoze when I was online ... In fact I unplugged the network cable when I started Windoze.

?

And, this is probably a silly question, but you don't lose all your files or anything, right?

With the LiveCD, which is what I was mainly suggesting as a start, you don't even write anything to your hard drive. It all takes place in memory. (As an aside, what that means is that if you have little memory, things will seem quite slow, and you're not saving anything except to a floppy.) You *can* write to the hard drive, but I don't personally recommend it unless you have a partition that is formatted in the FAT32 file format. The NTFS file format used by default in Windoze XP isn't very friendly with other OSes, to put it mildly. Supposedly the latest release of the Linux kernel (the heart of the OS) has a driver that supports writing to a NTFS drive, but I still don't trust it fully.

Now, if you're talking about installing Linux and want to go back to Windoze at some future date, whether you lose all your files depends on how you go about installing Linux in the first place. Some people take the plunge and just get rid of XP altogether. A lot of people, however, dual boot. That is, you can have more than one OS on your system and choose between them at will. There are a lot of different ways to do this. The safest is to get a new hard drive and have one OS on one drive and Windoze on another. The problems that arise are not with the way Linux does things, but with the way Windoze does them. For example, the vast majority of Windoze installations consume the entire drive in the beginning, and in order to get a different OS on there, you have to make room for it by partitioning it into to virtual drives. If you don't know what you're doing, or if your drive is too full before you start, you will run into issues with doing this.

As a more straightfoward, simple answer to your question, there's nothing inherent to Linux that means you'll lose all your files when switching between one or the other. If using a second hard drive (and all you need for a basic Linux installation is a cheap, small one) Linux can read all the files on a Windoze based drive without a problem, so you wouldn't lose anything that way either.

I just spent WAY too much time over the last 2 days trying to get WinXP Pro to format and fucking INSTALL on my Tosh laptop. Total bullshit - and typical Windows.

Anyway - I'm a recent Mac convert. I bought a new 17" MacBook Pro a month or so ago - and I LOVE it. It's absolutely wonderful - if a little awkward at first when you're "windows conditioned". Apple really knew what they were doing with they started from scratch w/ OSX. It's really nice.

I use FreeBSD too - and I love it. One of the reasons I think I took to the Mac. If you're not afraid to RTFM, learn, and figure things out (and hey, when Windows fucks up it's no BETTER or EASIER to deal with) any Unix/Linux OS will do. I haven't tried Linux in years - but am currently downloading an ISO of Ubuntu - I've heard enough about it that it's finally time to give it a look.

Oh and for the record - in order to get XP to install on my laptop instead of puking up a BSOD before even starting the actual installation I had to put the XP Pro cd in my Mac, copy the cd image to the hard drive and then using OSX's disk utility reburn the image to cdr. The image burned by the Mac installed beautifully. :wtf:



People that say linux/unix is "too hard" have never had to fuck around with Windows on any sort of intimate basis.

I suggest you give it a try. Looks pretty trick so far.

true? Or did I misread?

?

http://www.ubuntux.org/how-to-install-firefox-plugins-like-java-flash-pdf

However - I haven't tried nor have I done an actual hard drive install - and it may only work that way. From what I've seen so far though I WILL do an actual install on a box and run it. It's really nice.

The OS is Linux. Java and Flash run quite well on Linux. If either isn't packed with Ubuntu (and I have no idea if they are or not) you just download it and install it yourself.

(No hard drive) That's what I meant.

Sorry ... misunderstood.

I run Linux. There is a Linux version of Macromedia Flash that takes about 5 seconds to install. It's not open source software, so it is not distributed with Linux flavors that are 100% OSS, which some are. Regardless, once installed, you can download it, agree to the license, and voila'.

Java has been running on Linux systems since there was Java. It's a programming language.

"Dependency Hell"
Much like the old "DLL Hell" of Win 9X, but this one is still ongoing for Linux. No sign that it's going to be solved in my lifetime.
"Compile from Source"
It's great that your repository has all sorts of neat software to install, but what about cool stuff I want that isn't there?

Aren't choices great?

I don't really care what OS you use. I make a not insignificant amount of money from Windoze users who break their systems, so it's actually not in my interests to suggest alternatives that don't break every other day. In any case, I was offering a free to low cost alternative for the OP and noting that the prior comments about Flash and Java were totally wrong. I'll do something similar here.

"Dependency Hell" is absolutely nothing like DLL Hell. To say such declares an overwhelming misunderstanding of what the two are. Furthermore, you can generally fix a dependency problem fairly quickly and without having to resort to reinstalling the entire OS. Some -- well, many -- people claim the Red Hat package management system is responsible for this phenomenon, which is only partially true. What RPM does is simply tell you that a dependency problem exists. Some implementations of it also suggest ways on how to fix it. However, if you spend about ten minutes setting up a sources list compatible with your software manager that draws on the resources of all those who have come before, this problem is nearly eliminated. One of my OSes is SuSE, which is infamous for "Dependency Hell." I haven't had a dependency warning while installing software this year -- and I've installed a lot of software. I have more problems with my Slackware box, which supposedly is not susceptible to this problem ... and it isn't, except that you need to make sure everything a program requires to run is already on your box before you install it.

Compiling from source is a problem? I take it the OSS community offends you in some way. Even if so, I'm not sure what the complaint is about. I've only once been required to compile from source and then only because I didn't want to wait a day or two after a new revision of a certain software package was released for someone to package it into a RPM, DEB, or whatever. Having said that, I do compile from source on a fairly regular basis because I often want an app to be optimized for my system or to include certain non-default options or exclude others that I consider bloat or avenues for insecurities. You don't get that option without software that doesn't release the source. I object to your apparent attempt to equate choice and freedom with something negative.

I can't imagine what "cool software <you> want that isn't there" could mean. If you want "cool" software for Windoze that wouldn't have a packaged equivalent for Linux, you either go to a store buy it or order it online, or you download it and register it, or you steal it. I simply look for it with a Google search, download it, and install it. Then I'll pay the developers if it's something I really like and want to see further developed. Of course there's some crossover in the gaming arena, but if games are the litmus test of a OS, I suggest a dedicated gaming box instead.

The bottom line for me is this. Running a Windoze system requires money, sometimes lots of it, to make it work the way you want. It often requires even more money to keep it working that way as Windoze is drawn ever further into the spyware/virus protection racket. Running a Linux system requires acquisition of knowledge and personal effort. I choose the latter course and because of it have systems that work the way *I* want them to work. What you choose depends on your priorities. If you don't have the time to work with a Linux system and do have the money for Windoze or Mac, go for it.

Now I try to tell all my friends they should do the same. Most of them are stuck on XP saying they are used to the interface. I tell them that within about 2 weeks of using the Mac they will wonder how they ever got by without one. It is just a much better way to live :)

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

My TRS-80 Color Computer only had 4k.

I loved that machine! And it never crashed.:)

Wonders where the biological parts would go...when trying to do "that"???

OS X is a dream.

If you want to try it out, burn this .iso image and reboot with the CD in.

Gnoppix: http://mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/mirror/gnoppix.org/

If you're willing to go all the way then Ubuntu is good.

http://mirror.cs.umn.edu/ubuntu-releases/6.06/

Mark.

They can run or emulate Windows, if you find you still need some Microsoft capability.

I've never had a problem switching a file cross platform. With the new Intel Macs, PC users have no excuse. They've actually been timed as running XP faster than a PC. Although i don't know why one would want to ruin a beautiful mac by putting Windows on it.

All that's stopping me from adding a Mac to the home network is that I have no need for one. While they're nice, I'd either have to buy those Mac versions you mentioned, or run/emulate a Windoze OS.

My wife is the computer expert, and she occasionally has to have the latest hot new game. Oblivion hasn't been released for the Mac platform, and may never be. Ditto for Neverwinter Nights. Although she would like to add a Mac to the network, we really haven't seen anything to justify the expense, other than the cool factor and the fun of tinkering with it.

If I were starting from scratch, though, I'd certainly consider a Mac. I've almost never needed/wanted the latest and greatest Windows-only software.

compatible. You CAN stop the background crap by pressing ctl/alt/delete and stopping processes until you are happy. For definitions as to what they do, got to Microsucks and type in search the processes you see.

You can also un-install ALL of the crap software you aren't using. Run Windows Defender to see if you have spyware/malwware. An up to date anti-virus software could help

But for most because computers are appliances, buying a new one solves all problems.

Just get FreeBSD.

Or Suse Linux.

Or Ubuntu Linux.

for way less than $200 and it will last longer than the PC. The only short-lived Macs I've had involved some stupid accident, such as my sister's spastic cat knocking a bottle of water onto the keyboard of my brand new iBook. He is obviously not a graceful cat...


Or me kicking the previous iBook off my bed. Wait, actually, it was still three years old and it still worked perfectly for about six months after that incident. Oh yeah, and I can still hook it into a monitor and it works perfectly.

:rofl:

Sorry, one can upgrade one's existing PC with FreeBSD and it becomes 90% of a today's Mac.

We read lots of 'news' articles saying how Windows can be ran natively on intel macs. Yet nobody talks of OS X on every other intel-based PC. They are essentially the same thing; which was a reason why Apple leeched off of freebsd in the first place.

Also look up the Apple posts in GD. I will not support those vultures.

How dare you not worship the cult that is Steve Jobs?

I got a G4 Powerbook at home and I admit I like it more than Windows, actually retired my Windows box. But after I move, I think I'm gonna blow away my W2K box and make it a Linux server. Been a long time since I've played in that world.

new PC's can run Mac OS 10 Tiger. We have new HP dc5000's at work and one of the guys loaded OSX on it.
Great OS. I am a tech, like both but my personal computers at home are an iMac and my new MacBook.

I am planning on moving sometime soon, and don't want to learn a new OS to then again learn a new OS.

The thing that is the best about the apple is the lack of space it requires. WOW, no tower and a 2" or less monitor, well worth the $, for convenience and space consideration!

And, no more Bill "SPY" Gates "SOFT"!

that you stop fucking Microsoft Windows...

Don't you know that you can get viruses that way??

:silly:

I think he gets lonely during his (pardon the term) "down time."

You are hardly going to install Solaris or Minix on your PC. ;)

Mandriva (www.mandriva.com) is a good Linux distribution for newcomers.

...with Bill Gates. Macs are da bomb. No video games, though.

:bounce:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/

I wrote a (tiny) piece of it.

I'm sorry, but Mac OS X is awful if you don't like background processes. There are tons of them running, and its very difficult to turn them off. Mac OS X is better than windows in many ways, but speed and processes are not two of them. Switch to OS/2 if you really like the CPM feel, otherwise I recommend Gentoo linux: the documentation is amazing, making it extremely easy to install and use. Also, Knoppix linux (Debian based) offers a good LiveCD- you download it and burn it to disk, then boot from the CD- no installation required, but it does run a little slow if you have low ram.