Have you tried openSuSE?

Is that the same as SuSE? If so, yes.

No. SuSE was bought out by Novell, it is now Novell Enterprise Linux. The free version (of Novell Enterprise Linux) is openSuSE.

http://www.opensuse.org/

I just checked my saved Linux distros on my file server, it is actually openSuSE that I have and not SuSE. So yes, I've tried that.

What kind of problems were you having?

I hope this isn't the part where you try to offer solutions to the problems I was having in hopes to help me convert to Linux.


The problems with OpenSuSE... let's see. I've tried so many Linux distros I had to break out my LiveCD and play with it again.

Most of my problems are the same that I always have with Linux. Can't get hardware working right (both my NIC and my sound chip). Don't like the directory structure in Linux. Didn't fully recognize my ATi graphics card.

Then, beyond that, there's still the fundamental problem that I'm not looking to switch away from Windows. I have no frustrations with Windows that makes me want to switch to anything else. All my hardware works with Windows, drivers are well supported. Plenty of software to choose from. Higher quality software IMO. I try Linux every now and then because I like to see what's up on "the other side", and I invariably always have those Linux geeks out there insisting "there's a better way" and want me to "try it". They remind me of drug pushers. They believe that once you give it an open-minded try, you'll never want to go back to Windows, but that simply isn't true. I have to actually search for software online to use with Linux, whereas I can walk into any store and buy software for Windows. Most of the free software for Linux sucks (IMHO). I've tried OpenOffice and its compatibility with opening Microsoft Office apps is horrible (you can blame MS for this all you want, but as long as its a problem for the end-user, its going to turn people away). WINE doesn't work with all software so I'd have to have a copy of Windows for all my software that isn't compatible... and as long as I have to keep a license of Windows, I might as well just use it all the time since I'm not unhappy with it.

I'm afraid we just turned this into a Windows vs. Linux thread and I was trying to avoid that. It seems inevitable that any time you have a discussion of Windows, all the Linux people come out trying to push their wares and explain why its better for you (when that's not exactly what the topic was for in the first place) whether you're unhappy or not with your current setup.

Have you tried openSuSE?

Is that the same as SuSE? If so, yes.

No. SuSE was bought out by Novell, it is now Novell Enterprise Linux. The free version (of Novell Enterprise Linux) is openSuSE.

http://www.opensuse.org/

I just checked my saved Linux distros on my file server, it is actually openSuSE that I have and not SuSE. So yes, I've tried that.

What kind of problems were you having?

I hope this isn't the part where you try to offer solutions to the problems I was having in hopes to help me convert to Linux.

Personally, I couldn't care less what operating system you run...just because I ask what kind of problems you are having doesn't mean there is some sinister plot to "convert" you over to Linux. I just like seeing people get their Linux working...nothing more.

It falls under the category of extending a helping hand to my friends here.
Obviously you are curious about Linux, else you wouldn't be downloading distros to try them out. With that said, if you're trying out Linux, and having problems with various distros, you should expect the Linux community to step in and offer to help you...but that doesn't mean we are trying to convert you to Linux.

I run all 3...Linux, Solaris and Windows on my various workstations and servers at home. My main machine is XP Pro.

So, my advice to you is to throw your distros away...because you will forever struggle with it..too stubborn to get help with it...suspicious of all who try and help.

---

It falls under the category of extending a helping hand to my friends here.
Obviously you are curious about Linux, else you wouldn't be downloading distros to try them out. With that said, if you're trying out Linux, and having problems with various distros, you should expect the Linux community to step in and offer to help you...but that doesn't mean we are trying to convert you to Linux.

And its always unsolicited help. I said earlier in the thread that I'm not the type to turn to a community for help. Its great that there's so many helpful people out there willing to offer assistance, but I find it funny that I didn't need any assistance learning Windows at all (I learned a few tricks from a book or two but I learned Windows on my own), yet I need an entire community to learn Linux. I see something wrong with this picture.

As it is, I even had a whole machine set up to play with Linux and even went to the "community" for help. Received lots of help in getting my 3COM 3C905B-TX card working on my LAN, and help installing a multi-CPU kernel, and help installing BOINC on the machine. Martin (ML1) was one of the people who helped me. But in the end, the experience sucked for me. I didn't enjoy a single moment of it, any more than I like a poke in the eye. I love learning new things, which is why I like the computer industry so much, but Linux and Mac OS are just a pain to use.

The problem is, all the experts don't like to hear about a negative experience, so they try to find something wrong with you. You are too stubborn. You don't like new things. You are too used to the "old" thing. You didn't really try. Anything to keep their OS up on a pedestal and you like you're a damned moron. Its too much to ask them to believe that their OS really isn't as great as they claim it is.

So, my advice to you is to throw your distros away...because you will forever struggle with it..too stubborn to get help with it...suspicious of all who try and help.

If Linux were really as great as all the aficionados claim it is, then I wouldn't struggle with it. If it were really as intuitive as all the hardcore fans claim it is, then I wouldn't need help with it as it would all be second nature (being so intuitive and all).

I'm not "suspicious" of those who try to help me, I'm just tired of every time there's a Windows discussion, Linux geeks everywhere have to turn it into a bash-fest and spread a bunch of FUD about it (especially its newer versions such as Vista) and praise how wonderful Linux is and how its going to save the world (slight exaggeration, but I swear some Linux folks think so).

My suspicion isn't so much that I'm paranoid and stubborn, its that I hate elitist thinking and there's a very outspoken group of Mac and Linux users out there that insist on snubbing Windows. It generally makes me dislike the user-base and makes me not want to associate with such types (the Mac commercials wreak of elitism). I also don't appreciate having some "alternative" shoved down my throat (by constantly mentioning "try Linux!") when I'm perfectly happy with what I have now.

I am curious about Linux, so I will keep trying the distros until they have it right. Until they do, it gives me ammunition against those who would say "well, have you at least tried it?" to tell them "yes, and it sucked!". I will gladly report when it doesn't suck, but I need a version that actually doesn't suck.

Maybe I will never like Linux. Maybe Linux isn't for me. But that doesn't stop every Linux fan on every new site I visit (or old site with new Linux fanatics) from pulling the same sales pitch every time. It really gets tiresome and bothersome.

Can I pull a "Jeffrey" here and say in small words that I find it funny you say I'm too stubborn to receive help yet I tried that route and still didn't like Linux.

Too bad Vista is crap.

Look for Windows 7 in the near future (touted as the latest, which will be a dumbed down version of Vista SP?)

Vista reminds me of Windows 2000. wasn't around very long before they suddenly release XP Pro

Greetings Mike,

I know I'm replying to an old post, but what the heck. :)

I have a laptop with dual core Intel CPU, blah, blah, blah. It had, notice I said "had", Win Vista on it. It would take that laptop about 5 minutes to boot up. I read of all these tweaks you could do to speed up boot time. I did them to no avail. I finally got tired of it and downloaded Ubuntu Linux and installed it. The laptop takes about a minute to boot now. And, Ubuntu had no problem configuring the laptop's hardware.

Ok, enough of my rah, rah, rah.... ;)

Live long and prosper \\V/_

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

And, Ubuntu had no problem configuring the laptop's hardware.

A kid I work with tried the same thing. He went back to Vista. By his own admission "Windows just works". Ubuntu wouldn't recognize half his hardware on his laptop.

And, Ubuntu had no problem configuring the laptop's hardware.

A kid I work with tried the same thing. He went back to Vista. By his own admission "Windows just works". Ubuntu wouldn't recognize half his hardware on his laptop.

My laptop will never see Windoze on it again. Linux just works. I do admit, I did have my worries about the hardware. But, that was a chance I was willing to take. I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

Before I got wireless in this house, I went to a mall to use an access point. I would watch the battery indicator decrease a bit while the laptop booted up. That's bad!

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Live long and prosper \\V/_

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

I have DOS machines that boot up in less than 10 seconds. I also have a Windows 98SE machine that boots in about a minute. My Vista machines do take considerably longer, but they're much more secure than any previous version of Windows (well, except that no one writes viruses for Windows 3.1 anymore, and trojans never existed to my knowledge), while allowing me to stay current.

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Yeah, I see a trend. You like Linux. I can respect that. But again, I thought this was a Vista thread, not a "I hate Vista so I use Linux" thread.

I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

I have DOS machines that boot up in less than 10 seconds. I also have a Windows 98SE machine that boots in about a minute. My Vista machines do take considerably longer, but they're much more secure than any previous version of Windows (well, except that no one writes viruses for Windows 3.1 anymore, and trojans never existed to my knowledge), while allowing me to stay current.

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Yeah, I see a trend. You like Linux. I can respect that. But again, I thought this was a Vista thread, not a "I hate Vista so I use Linux" thread.

The Frozen Penny on XP x64 takes about 65 seconds to reboot.....from the restart command in Windows to the new screen........the SATA hard drive is a big factor.....never tried setting it up to boot from the USB drive......

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

I have DOS machines that boot up in less than 10 seconds. I also have a Windows 98SE machine that boots in about a minute. My Vista machines do take considerably longer, but they're much more secure than any previous version of Windows (well, except that no one writes viruses for Windows 3.1 anymore, and trojans never existed to my knowledge), while allowing me to stay current.

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Yeah, I see a trend. You like Linux. I can respect that. But again, I thought this was a Vista thread, not a "I hate Vista so I use Linux" thread.

I think my problem is mostly, I don't like Vista. XP Pro is a good OS. Vista to me is bloat and I don't see how Vista is more secure.

---

I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

I have DOS machines that boot up in less than 10 seconds. I also have a Windows 98SE machine that boots in about a minute. My Vista machines do take considerably longer, but they're much more secure than any previous version of Windows (well, except that no one writes viruses for Windows 3.1 anymore, and trojans never existed to my knowledge), while allowing me to stay current.

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Yeah, I see a trend. You like Linux. I can respect that. But again, I thought this was a Vista thread, not a "I hate Vista so I use Linux" thread.

I think my problem is mostly, I don't like Vista. XP Pro is a good OS. Vista to me is bloat and I don't see how Vista is more secure.

Same sentiments here.......I would still be running NT4.0 if I hadn't stepped on the CD some time back.....LOL.
But XP pro is about as stable......like a rock. Both my 32bit and my 64bit versions have no issues.......

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I think my problem is mostly, I don't like Vista. XP Pro is a good OS. Vista to me is bloat and I don't see how Vista is more secure.

I guess Vista isn't for everybody anymore than Linux is.

I just find comments funny like "Vista is bloat" when the same thing was said about Windows XP when it first came out. I heard people proclaiming that they will never let Windows 98SE go until they were forced to upgrade.

I also remember, long ago, people claiming that Windows itself was bloat, and even a lot of the utility programs that came with DOS were bloat too. All you needed, from their perspective, was the DOS kernel and maybe a DOS memory manager.

Same sentiments here.......I would still be running NT4.0 if I hadn't stepped on the CD some time back.....LOL.
But XP pro is about as stable......like a rock. Both my 32bit and my 64bit versions have no issues.......

Windows 2000 should have been great for you then. Had the plug 'n play features of Windows 98 brought to the NT architecture, and none of the "bloat" of XP.

I don't like waiting 5 minutes for a computer to boot up so I can use it.

I have DOS machines that boot up in less than 10 seconds. I also have a Windows 98SE machine that boots in about a minute. My Vista machines do take considerably longer, but they're much more secure than any previous version of Windows (well, except that no one writes viruses for Windows 3.1 anymore, and trojans never existed to my knowledge), while allowing me to stay current.

I have one Windoze machine and it's WinXP SP2. It will NOT see Vista on it. Hmmmm.... 3 computers with Linux, one with Windoze? Can we see a trend here? :)

Yeah, I see a trend. You like Linux. I can respect that. But again, I thought this was a Vista thread, not a "I hate Vista so I use Linux" thread.

Greetings,

What do you run that you still use DOS? That is so, old school, so 20th century. ;)

I have a non-"PC" computer that runs an OS called OS-9. Not to be confused with Apple's OS/9 OS. It's called a Tandy Color Computer III. It boots OS-9 in about 15 seconds or so. And it's processor is only running at 1.78 MHz.

Yeah, this thread is about Win Vista. Are you telling me that we can only post here if we LIKE Vista? I never once said that I "hate" Vista. But, now that you mention it.... ;) All I was doing was reporting my experiences which were not so favorable about Vista. If that offends you, then I apologize. But, I will not speak favorably about something that is a lost cause. And Vista is a lost cause.

By the way, I am replying to this on my Linux laptop. :)

Live long and prosper \\V/_

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

What do you run that you still use DOS? That is so, old school, so 20th century. ;)

I like old architecture. I keep my machines mainly for my own entertainment purposes, but no real work is done on them that requires me to keep them. I refer to them as my 'museum' of computers. I'm trying to collect all x86 compatible hardware, and I want each machine functional so that one could sit down and experience what the machine performs like. I'm a big fan of PC architecture and this is my hobby and my passion so I've limited it to x86 only.

Yeah, this thread is about Win Vista. Are you telling me that we can only post here if we LIKE Vista? I never once said that I "hate" Vista. But, now that you mention it.... ;) All I was doing was reporting my experiences which were not so favorable about Vista. If that offends you, then I apologize. But, I will not speak favorably about something that is a lost cause. And Vista is a lost cause.

No, I guess not. I suppose hating Vista still falls within topic of the thread.

My only fear is that by simply mentioning Vista it will turn into a bash-fest, and then invariably you will always have people who make false claims about it. I've tried, throughout the entire thread, to differentiate between unverified claims and fact. I've admitted when there's things in Vista that I don't like, and I've tried arguing misconceptions about Vista that seem to get people on a tangent about how they hate it for all the wrong reasons.

I don't have a problem with people hating Vista, but if they're going to hate it, they should hate it for the right reasons and not something they "heard" on the internet, or other nonsense such as "bloat" or "high system requirements" (in a relative sense of the phrase), or how it crashes too much, or how it caused them to go sterile. ;)

What do you run that you still use DOS? That is so, old school, so 20th century. ;)

I like old architecture. I keep my machines mainly for my own entertainment purposes, but no real work is done on them that requires me to keep them. I refer to them as my 'museum' of computers. I'm trying to collect all x86 compatible hardware, and I want each machine functional so that one could sit down and experience what the machine performs like. I'm a big fan of PC architecture and this is my hobby and my passion so I've limited it to x86 only.

Yeah, this thread is about Win Vista. Are you telling me that we can only post here if we LIKE Vista? I never once said that I "hate" Vista. But, now that you mention it.... ;) All I was doing was reporting my experiences which were not so favorable about Vista. If that offends you, then I apologize. But, I will not speak favorably about something that is a lost cause. And Vista is a lost cause.

No, I guess not. I suppose hating Vista still falls within topic of the thread.

My only fear is that by simply mentioning Vista it will turn into a bash-fest, and then invariably you will always have people who make false claims about it. I've tried, throughout the entire thread, to differentiate between unverified claims and fact. I've admitted when there's things in Vista that I don't like, and I've tried arguing misconceptions about Vista that seem to get people on a tangent about how they hate it for all the wrong reasons.

I don't have a problem with people hating Vista, but if they're going to hate it, they should hate it for the right reasons and not something they "heard" on the internet, or other nonsense such as "bloat" or "high system requirements" (in a relative sense of the phrase), or how it crashes too much, or how it caused them to go sterile. ;)

I used to program on a Basic 4 system many years ago.......

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

[off topic]If you want to see slow boot times, you should have seen when I installed Windows 95 on an old Compaq 386DX 20MHz CPU with 8MB of RAM! It took over half an hour to boot! :)

I had Linux people telling me back in '98 to put Linux on it with the command line only and watch the 386 fly and be more functional than if using DOS.

(the Mac commercials wreak of elitism)

Despite the fact that OSX is my favorite OS, let me be the first one to say it:

Apple is fixen to be a thousand times worse than Microsoft ever was... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I've been a Windows "fanboy" since Win 3.0 (5¼ disks anyone?) & still have all installation disks since those days.

I must admit that as everyone else has been saying "it works". OK, but what when it doesn't work or no longer works? Example, I purchased & built a rig to operate MS Windows Home Server. For several months, it ran fine, no problems, crashes, data loss, BSOD's, well, you get the message.

Now, problems galore & it's not just me as their forums are showing - suddenly problems happening which didn't happen before (no updating or new programs installed)!

Can't copy files to server, backup database corrupted/lost - MS's answer, you must have added/removed drive without using Add/Remove Wizard! Is that so, why does it show all drives as healthy? What is the answer when informed that no drives have been added/removed? - none!

Because of these problems & with the help & knowledge of the IT community (note I said IT & not Win/Mac/*nix afficadoes) I have gained experience in using *nix. Unfortunately, not enough to attempt configuring a *nix server. However, if MS continues to release buggy software that will not work on standard hardware, then I for one will definitely run that program down - After spending thousands on MS, I think I'm entitled to.

---

I must admit that as everyone else has been saying "it works". OK, but what when it doesn't work or no longer works? Example, I purchased & built a rig to operate MS Windows Home Server. For several months, it ran fine, no problems, crashes, data loss, BSOD's, well, you get the message.

<snipped for brevity>

Because of these problems & with the help & knowledge of the IT community (note I said IT & not Win/Mac/*nix afficadoes) I have gained experience in using *nix. Unfortunately, not enough to attempt configuring a *nix server. However, if MS continues to release buggy software that will not work on standard hardware, then I for one will definitely run that program down - After spending thousands on MS, I think I'm entitled to.

Windows Home Server isn't a finished product, IMO. They already had 64bit clients out, and it can't even mix well on a hybrid 32bit/64bit network. Many of the features were not well thought out and I generally don't see a need for WHS. ArsTechnica has a long and detailed list of problems with WHS and I avoid it like the plague. I have no idea why Microsoft rushed it out the door without properly testing it and giving it a list of useful features to make it a worthwhile product.

I think you have every right to complain about WHS. After all, it is a crappy product.

... After all, it is a crappy product.

Good you don't reserve judgement whatever the product and source :-)

I've developed systems using MS 3.11 WfW, Win95C and WinXP SP1, and always far away from initial releases. Yet various shortcomings in WinXP forced a complete jump elsewhere. Linux was a very obvious choice that worked remarkably well, and still does so.

So much so that the latest kernel that I'm working with, 2.6.24, is the first that I've ever suffered a kernel Oops with for anything. Admittedly, that is for maxed out utilisation on very recent hardware.

So, Linux indeed isn't perfect, but there is very good openness that gets problems fixed quickly. I already know the conditions that can cause the oops and there's tools to let me test out the scenarios to either fix the problem myself or to avoid the problem. Meanwhile, the kernel people will no doubt pick up the problem soon enough...


Whatever system you use, there will always be great inertia to change and to try out (and like) any alternative no matter how unfamiliar or not.

I guess that people that are forced to change due to killer problems on their present system or due to the lure of some killer application on the new can get a little excited about why oh why did they not make the move sooner!


I see a frightening amount of time and expense wasted on computers and computing that is utter waste and all merely for the sake of selfish competitive lock-in.

I believe there are better and more productive ways to make better use of the computing and development resources that we already have...

I think that people who just simply wish to use computers would be happier also.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)