Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Which Linux For Non-Techie Windows Users?

<< < (4/6) > >>

zxcvbn:
Well . . .

I see myself as non techie, but I succeeded in installing Ubuntu on a Toshiba Satellite 100 lap top without difficulty.  The original poster said, "I'm not too concerned about software".  Just make sure that is really true !  For example - I am "into" Family History" and the only Linux Family History programme that I have found is Gramps - and that does things differently from the majority of Windows based FH programmes.  This is not insuperable - but it needs to be reckoned with.

So do make sure that if you install Linux, techie or not - you will be able to do what you want to do.

dwbrant:
Sadly, my Linux installs are a wayside, still a play thing for me.

A majority of the time I spend in front of my personal machine is spent in Adobe Lightroom, "developing" photos.  Since that software is only available for OSX or Windows, I am stuck until Adobe deigns to make a version that I could run on Linux.

Sure, there are substitutes out there in Linux-land that will do what Lightroom does... but let's face it, I'm not getting any younger or more willing to learn different stuff.  None of the substitutes do things the way I expect them to, and Lightroom is simply an excellent photo cataloging/development tool.  I do not intend to give it up.

I've tried to run it under Wine; in fact, one or two of the older versions of Lightroom will in fact run under Wine ... the problem being, they're older versions, and also don't do what I've grown to expect from Lightroom.

Anyone else a fan of Adobe products such as Photoshop or Lightroom?  We really need to push them to develop software that will run on Linux.

brahman:
Linux Mint and Mepis get my vote.

Antix Mepis for old PCs.

steeladept:
A quick search on this site will show I have been advocating Mint Linux for quite some time, and I am hardly the only one.  On a rather old PC running and early Athalon processor (single core, don't recall the speed though), I use the XFCE interface version.  It has been flawless.  Apparently there is also an even lighter interface by using the Fluxbox version, but I haven't tried that.  I am quite happy with the XFCE version and it's development.

I have always heard a lot of good things about Mepis, but it has never worked well for me.

As to the argument about Linux not appearing to be better than Windows 7, that is because it isn't currently.  Windows 7 is very fast and streamlined for an OS.  The only way you will find a Linux version that is faster than Windows 7 at this point is to get one without a GUI, or at least without a GUI with all the same bells and whistles (you can accomplish the same thing with Windows 7 by the way - turning off the GUI and getting better performance, but who would want to?).  As Zane has pointed out - at this point you don't go to Linux for a windows-like experience with better performance.  You move to Linux for the flexibility, price, and/or desire to learn a new system.

Having worked extensively with every major OS type out there (except Mac, I have worked with it but not extensively), I can say that I generally like Windows best, but Mint is my preference due to cost and flexibility.  Windows has the best software base and is, therefore the most usable in my mind.  Mint, however, is nearly as usable, free (though donations are greatly appreciated by the developers), and has great support as well.  zO/S is a pain on a good day, but supposedly is one of the best for non-Parallel High Performance Computing (HPC).  The only good thing I can definitely say about it is it really helped me get a new, fuller appreciation for virtualization (something I have been strongly interested in ever since I first heard about it).  Sun Solaris is a nifty OS for Unix, but always crashes a lot for me.  I think it is because I don't use it to do the same thing every day, but rather fiddle with it all the time.  It is a "Cranky old man" OS, but I like it none-the-less.  Last but not least, Macs are simple to use and slick, but are very expensive and not nearly as useful as a general use machine from what I have seen.  Again, however, I have not used them extensively so don't blast me Apple-fanboys :P , I just want to give my first impressions as it were.  Hope that helps any readers.  If not, you are done now. ;)

urlwolf:
I would never put linux on a non-techie machine. No matter how much linux has improved, you need to do some sysadmin... impossible for a non-techie on his own.

There are two other important factors

* Flexibility makes it possible to break the system in creative ways. There are errors that would take hours of reading and days of troubleshooting to fix, even for an advanced user.
* Buggy software. It's the norm. Not the exception. Add shared libraries, and the situation gets harder. Plus of course, even the more recent distros will have outdated software for fast-moving targets. Trying to have the latest version of everything (easy on win, as long as you like to click 'next') is extremely hard and dangerous.
I had a laptop that didn't take linux. A dell 1720. It has sucked many hours out of my life and two sysadmins. We changed hd trice. Win 7 works fine, and we stress-tested it for a week.

Still, I need some advanced stuff that is not easy to get working on win, but mainly for programming. Even though I'm full-time linux, I have to admit, there are huge quality problems.

[/list]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page