XP, Vista, Ubuntu and then back home

Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Over the last few months I have used XP, Vista, and Ubuntu and then have come back home to Mac. About a year ago I sold my 12" PowerBook and got a windows laptop. That experience did not go well. The laptop was made by Acer and that led to some issues in and of itself. So on Thursday I went and got my new MBP 15" with 2 gigs of ram. I have to say it is good to be home.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,570
Reaction score
470
Points
83
Location
Colorado
Your Mac's Specs
Mac's
Welcome home Kenotic, welcome home indeed. :)
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Kenotic, welcome to Mac Forums!!
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
New York / Oklahoma
Glad you came home. It is good to be back, isn't it?

Good luck!
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
328
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Your Mac's Specs
White MacBook, 2.0 ghz Intel Core 2, 2GB ram||[G4 Imac Flat Panel] |800mhz|1Gb RAM|60gb HDD
Ubuntu is great. It is my second choice for operating systems. If you want to try Linux I recommend it. It will grow with you from Newbie to Pro.

I second that. I spent some time with Ubuntu but the wireless driver issues caused me enough trouble to give up on it. I run it now through Parallels every now and then when I want to play. Ubuntu has brought Linux light years into the future.
 
T

todd51

Guest
I second that. I spent some time with Ubuntu but the wireless driver issues caused me enough trouble to give up on it. I run it now through Parallels every now and then when I want to play. Ubuntu has brought Linux light years into the future.

Wireless problems is what made me give up on it also, then I switched to Mac, I like to check out Linux every once in a while though to see how it's coming along.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Ubuntu is definately my favorite Linux distro. I first tried it back when it was first released. I've run just about every release. My problem is that I get bored and want to try something else.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
Over the last few months I have used XP, Vista, and Ubuntu and then have come back home to Mac. About a year ago I sold my 12" PowerBook and got a windows laptop. That experience did not go well. The laptop was made by Acer and that led to some issues in and of itself. So on Thursday I went and got my new MBP 15" with 2 gigs of ram. I have to say it is good to be home.

Welcome back - aside from Vista, I've taken the same tour and ended up on the Mac. <shudder, gets queasy feeling>Acer<shudder>... know what you mean there. I have the unfortunate responsibility of supporting about 45 <cough, blech!>Acer<ick!> TravelMate Tablet PCs.... the company, the quality of the machine and the support sucks worse than any other manufacturer I've had the misfortune of dealing with. They make Dell look saintly.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Milton Keynes, UK
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, 120GB HDD
The laptop was made by Acer and that led to some issues in and of itself.

I had an Acer laptop once. I left it to charge over night as the batt was low and I woke up the net morning to notice that the thing wouldn't turn on and th motherboard had blown. Tought me a big lesson about laptop chargers.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
324
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Location
Leeds, England
Your Mac's Specs
17" Core Duo Macbook Pro
I'd say Ubuntu / Kubuntu is the most advanced operating system out there, at least that I've used, including OS X. The problem is of course there's too much open source beta software and not enough commercial software available for it. If you factor that in OS X is king.

Acer really is third rate - they just feel like they could pack up at any minute.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Linux and Mac OS X

I think distros like U/K/buntu present Linux with an identity crisis, which may be good. Many, many Linux fans *like* the tinkering aspect of Linux - you get to configure the very guts of the OS to your liking. The downside is that you *have* to do this in most cases to get everything working. This has been the Linux "aura" for a long time. Along comes Ubuntu, and more or less, everything just works. It *is* standard Linux so you can go and tinker if you want, but you don't need to. Who is the target audience? Not hard core Linux users - they want more control. It has to be the world's Microsoft users. This is an excellent open source OS that will compete head to head with Windows. So, IMHO, Ubuntu isn't "classic" Linux any more - it is Linux attempting to broaden its appeal and reach out well beyond the normal group of people who would be interested in Linux. Is this good or bad? It depends on your point of view, although anything that impacts on the Microsoft hegemony is a good thing in my opinion. Some people in the Linux community are openly worried that Ubuntu Linux takes the Linux out of Linux, hence my "identity crisis" comment above.

Personally, I prefer the smaller boutique Linux distros. My favorite is Arch Linux, a performance optimized screamer that openly bills itself as Linux for the advanced Linux user. It is hard core, classic Linux. Pretty much nothing works out of the box. You have to configure and install just about everything - hence the "for the advanced user" billing. You need to have been kicking around core Linux for a while to use Arch successfully.

But, there is a payoff. Arch is all about size and performance. You get all that Linux goodness in a screaming fast wrapper. It is small, fast and powerful. The combo of my Arch distro and my 3.0 GHz Pentium IV HT PC is the fastest computer I have ever used.

I will honestly admit that if there had been a version of iTunes for Linux and a version of Photoshop for Linux, I would have never considered moving to Mac. It was only my reliance on those programs, necessitating the ongoing need to keep Windows around that got me thinking about Macs. Get a Mac and I could get rid of Windows. Originally, I was going to get a Mac and just use it for iTunes and Photoshop, continuing to "live" day to day in Linux...

Of course then you realize that Macs are based on *nix, and you can combine the best of both worlds (free OSS and commercial softare, all in one tidy package). Then you learn about all that fabulous Mac OS X software and all the other goodies that are available. Well, the plan changed. I am really glad that I *did* consider Macs. Much as I hate to say it, since getting my Mac, my trusty old Arch Linux machine gets almost no use at all. It has been eclipsed in every way by my Mac. All part of growing up I guess! :dive:
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Points
8
I agree with DrQuincy about Ubuntu being the most advanced OS. I also agree with mac57 in that OSX offers the best compromise. I would add that as a younger man with a lot more free time I loved "tinkering" with OSs. I remember having to replace my BIOS chip with a new one in order to load OS/2 2.0. I also messed with Slackware 1.x distros at that time. I have loaded many distros over the years but I no longer have the time to HAVE to configure every aspect of Linux. This is why I think Ubuntu is great. You have the ability to go to that level if you like but you don't have to. This also means that you can just load and use it but improve it when you have the time. The lack of an easy path to iTunes and Windows Media is the biggest downfall to Linux. The Windows Media can be done but it's not perfect.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
I agree with DrQuincy about Ubuntu being the most advanced OS. I also agree with mac57 in that OSX offers the best compromise. I would add that as a younger man with a lot more free time I loved "tinkering" with OSs. I remember having to replace my BIOS chip with a new one in order to load OS/2 2.0. I also messed with Slackware 1.x distros at that time. I have loaded many distros over the years but I no longer have the time to HAVE to configure every aspect of Linux. This is why I think Ubuntu is great. You have the ability to go to that level if you like but you don't have to. This also means that you can just load and use it but improve it when you have the time. The lack of an easy path to iTunes and Windows Media is the biggest downfall to Linux. The Windows Media can be done but it's not perfect.

Let me start off by saying that I like Ubuntu (and Linux in general) quite a bit. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the most "advanced OS". In terms of Linux distributions, it is perhaps the easiest to configure and use for someone who is new to Linux or computing in general.

That said, it still has a number of kinks to work out. For one, Ubuntu doesn't come out of the box with WPA support for wireless networking. If you want to enable WPA, there are a number of tutorials that explain how to do so - but it isn't anywhere near as easy as it should be. Typing paragraphs of commands to install up to date wireless drivers (assuming there is even a Linux driver that has support for WPA for your given Wireless card) and getting the WPA-supplicant working can be quite an ordeal.

In addition, Ubuntu also suffers the same weaknesses that most Linux distros do as it relates to correctly determining and using screen resolutions. In many cases, even after reconfiguring X, my Ubuntu installations still were never able to either detect or configure the correct native screen resolution for my laptop's widescreen display.

These are just a few examples of problems that are very simple to correct on other platforms, but can be a nightmare on Linux (and Ubuntu) if you don't know what you're doing or don't feel like dredging through forums and reading countless articles.

In my opinion, Linux's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness - and that is that there are very few facets of the operating system that are standardized. If you like tinkering, that can be a very good thing. But if you're an average Joe who wants something that "just works", it can be maddening.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Let me start off by saying that I like Ubuntu (and Linux in general) quite a bit. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the most "advanced OS". In terms of Linux distributions, it is perhaps the easiest to configure and use for someone who is new to Linux or computing in general.

That said, it still has a number of kinks to work out. For one, Ubuntu doesn't come out of the box with WPA support for wireless networking. If you want to enable WPA, there are a number of tutorials that explain how to do so - but it isn't anywhere near as easy as it should be. Typing paragraphs of commands to install up to date wireless drivers (assuming there is even a Linux driver that has support for WPA for your given Wireless card) and getting the WPA-supplicant working can be quite an ordeal.

In addition, Ubuntu also suffers the same weaknesses that most Linux distros do as it relates to correctly determining and using screen resolutions. In many cases, even after reconfiguring X, my Ubuntu installations still were never able to either detect or configure the correct native screen resolution for my laptop's widescreen display.

These are just a few examples of problems that are very simple to correct on other platforms, but can be a nightmare on Linux (and Ubuntu) if you don't know what you're doing or don't feel like dredging through forums and reading countless articles.

In my opinion, Linux's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness - and that is that there are very few facets of the operating system that are standardized. If you like tinkering, that can be a very good thing. But if you're an average Joe who wants something that "just works", it can be maddening.

I think advanced can be taken in many ways so point taken.

Also, I have never used Linux on a laptop so I guess that is why I've never realized the issues with WPA. I have never had any serious problems with video drivers or screen resolutions. Installation of video drivers is definately more complicated than it should be though. Also, enabling 3d accelleration can be a bit of a chore on some systems.
 
OP
K
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I would have to disagree with you on WPA support specifically. All you have to do it get "easy" WPA support is to install networkmanager. The display issues can be a problem if you are using intel hardware or nvidia/ati with out the 3d drivers.

I do agree that OS X is very simple to use and you do not have to do all that. It just works out of the box.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
I would have to disagree with you on WPA support specifically. All you have to do it get "easy" WPA support is to install networkmanager. The display issues can be a problem if you are using intel hardware or nvidia/ati with out the 3d drivers.

I do agree that OS X is very simple to use and you do not have to do all that. It just works out of the box.

networkmanager is the gui front-end that allows you to use WPA, but you have to have wpa-enabled drivers installed first, which are not native to Ubuntu. This means that you'll need to identify the specific chipset in your wireless card (not too hard if you have a Centrino machine, but very difficult if you're using a name brand card that doesn't identify the chipset), then locate the drivers package (if it exists) and install and configure it. Either way, it's not an easy thing to do for the average user and compared to Windows and MacOS, it's a nightmare.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Points
8
networkmanager is the gui front-end that allows you to use WPA, but you have to have wpa-enabled drivers installed first, which are not native to Ubuntu. This means that you'll need to identify the specific chipset in your wireless card (not too hard if you have a Centrino machine, but very difficult if you're using a name brand card that doesn't identify the chipset), then locate the drivers package (if it exists) and install and configure it. Either way, it's not an easy thing to do for the average user and compared to Windows and MacOS, it's a nightmare.

That sounds like a Linux issue not just Ubuntu. Or am I missing something?
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top