I am experiencing lately a strange intermittent high activity of svchost, with huge memory usage, up to 2 GB. Of course this causes many problems, especially in a PC which is not beefed up with 32 GB RAM, but only has 4 GB physical RAM. I am on Win7.

I made a search and in several forums this behaviour is ascribed to a Windows Update bug, which should be cured by KB3135445. Which is in the red list related to W10. I am totally adhering to the list and not wanting to risk the update or data sniffing W10-wise.

Only, these forums also seem W10 aware and people writing there seem not to like W10 as much as we do not.

See for instance:
http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/390995-svchost-exe-crazy-high-cpu-usage-crazy-high-memory-usage-2.html
http://forums.majorgeeks.com/index.php?threads/svchost-exe-high-memory-usage.297165/

Any hint/suggestion/comment on this particular matter?

Thank you!

Sleepy

Evaluate this one instead...

https://www.reactos.org/

Just have & 1 word - dismal.

Have tried much better live cd's. They need to improve theirs immensely. No programs or web browser. Not even any network connections detected.

This post answers several questions and replies to several posts since my last one, so there's something for several of you in what is below.



re: checking for updates uses lots of memory and CPU
I do recall one of those updates for the Update Client saying something about high CPU usage and high memory usage, but I look at it as one of those catch-22 situations. Yes, it fixes the problem of needing more memory than it should and maxing out a whole CPU core.. but at what cost? It's very similar to that "when a security update is not a security update" one, where there are benefits from it.. but there are also drawbacks as well.

It isn't specifically stated anywhere that the October 2015 Client does not do nefarious things in the background, when some google searches for the September 2015 update returned a few research pages on google that said there was some evidence or very strong speculation that it does.

I look at it like this: better safe than sorry. I just inherently don't trust any of the new Update Clients released after the release of 10 (which are all included in my list).

I have noticed that the one instance of svchost.exe does use a lot of memory and CPU time, but on my main machine, I have 16gb of RAM and 6 cores--it is a non-issue. My laptop is only dual-core and has 4gb--that gets a little sluggish, but that only lasts for a few minutes until checking for updates has finished, so I can live with it.




re: updates taking forever when you do a clean vanilla install
I know the feeling. I've described this before in this thread, but when you get updates directly from MS, checking for updates takes forever, and then downloading them does, as well. This is because you only end up downloading fractional portions of each update--only the files that you need.

Example: Say... update A contains 10 updated files inside of it. You need all 10 of those from update A. But then there's update B that also contains 10 updated files (in reference to the vanilla, RTM versions), but only three of them are changed from what was contained with A. That means, you only need to download 7 of the files from A, and only 3 of the files from B. That takes a lot of CPU time, and disk access (and if you watch task manager, you'll see a lot of makecab.exe instances come and go in the process).

However, on my main machine, I have it connected to my WSUS machine. When you get updates from WSUS, it does not do partial downloads of updates--you get the entire update and it installs everything for every update. This sounds like it would take longer, but it is actually over an hour faster from a vanilla install all the way up to current day. It is an hour faster largely because it only takes about two minutes to be told that you need 94 updates, and then you "download" them from the WSUS machine over gigabit. They begin installing, and that takes about 30 minutes. Then you restart, get SP1 the same way, that takes about 20 minutes to install, restart. Then there's just over 300 updates after SP1. Those take about 30 seconds to download over gigabit from WSUS machine, and it takes about 4 hours to install those.



re: lack of control in 10
If it came down to it for 10, I could deal with the lack of control with the updates, because I would just use WSUS, which lets me pick and choose updates to approve or decline, so that isn't particularly an issue for me--it's the data-mining and spying that I don't trust.



re: shortcut for GWX Control Panel
As was stated by someone else, it already has the ability to always run on its own. As was stated right after my earlier reply:

Enabling/Disabling Monitor Mode for all users (recommended):

If your computer has multiple user profiles--especially if some of those profiles are Standard or Child accounts--the best way to use Monitor Mode is to enable it for all users.

To do this, just click the Enable Monitor Mode button in the main GWX Control Panel window. The notification icon will appear in the currently logged-on session of Windows, and will also appear for other user accounts who later sign in to Windows.

That should work even with the stand-alone version (doesn't need to be installed, just a simple EXE that you double-click to run).

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

10 is simply a pox and/or hoax on the entire computing community.
I am writing this on my daily driver, which is locked on 7 and has updates permanently on forever hold.
I don't intend to allow them ever again unless I am forced to by something that will not allow it to function properly.

And all my crunch-only rigs are still on XP. Performing flawlessly I might add.
Couple are 64 bit and the others are all 32 bit.
I have not had to reboot ONE of them in months, except for a hardware issue now rectified.

I only updated my daily driver to 7 because of some browser issues that necessitated my doing so.

I am very much old school, and will remain so until I cannot do otherwise.
At that point, I suppose I might consider Linux...but for now that learning curve is far too great for me to address.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

re: checking for updates uses lots of memory and CPU
I do recall one of those updates for the Update Client saying something about high CPU usage and high memory usage, but I look at it as one of those catch-22 situations. Yes, it fixes the problem of needing more memory than it should and maxing out a whole CPU core.. but at what cost? It's very similar to that "when a security update is not a security update" one, where there are benefits from it.. but there are also drawbacks as well.

It isn't specifically stated anywhere that the October 2015 Client does not do nefarious things in the background, when some google searches for the September 2015 update returned a few research pages on google that said there was some evidence or very strong speculation that it does.

From this Sevenforums thread:
As far as I can work out it's an upgrade for Windows Update Client that enables you to block Windows 10 upgrade updates via group policy. That's no good on your machine as Home Premium doesn't have Group Policy Editor. So I suggest not installing KB3083710 for that reason. Other users with higher versions of Windows 7 might find it useful.

So really, it even helps against Windows 10.
It allows you to enable the DisableOSUpgrade key in the registry through the group policy editor (on Windows Pro and Ultimate versions, Home and Basic need to do it through the registry).

The only thing that it does do is override your hidden packages setting and show them back in the updates list, and perhaps adjust the "Get recommended updates the same way as important updates" back to on. But that's no problem, that's just set all that back off and you're done.

I look at it like this: better safe than sorry. I just inherently don't trust any of the new Update Clients released after the release of 10 (which are all included in my list).

I have noticed that the one instance of svchost.exe does use a lot of memory and CPU time, but on my main machine, I have 16gb of RAM and 6 cores--it is a non-issue. My laptop is only dual-core and has 4gb--that gets a little sluggish, but that only lasts for a few minutes until checking for updates has finished, so I can live with it.

I have 16GB of RAM on my i5-2500K and when I don't have these two updates installed, Windows Update takes a minimum of 30 minutes to check for updates each time, then a further minimum of 3 hours to download any updates and install those, and all at a cost of a sluggish machine that's almost unusable.

For comparisons, my i3-540 with 8GB of RAM (hyperthreading turned off, so only 2 cores) with those updates installed has always -no matter how many updates it would have to check for and download- done all that in 20 minutes, at no cost of interference. It also has DisableOSUPgrade enabled in the registry, it's the one machine that has had an old KB3035583 installed for absolute ages to test if said registry key worked. It's still got Windows 7, no nags towards Windows 10.

Just reiterating that even while there's all these updates with Windows 10 stuff integrated around, that Microsoft may err and release genuine updates that fix trouble, and only that.

It's not comparable to KB3139929 in that it doesn't secretly download and/or install another update in the background that you cannot uninstall without uninstalling its parent.

---

To each their own. I'm not at all an authority on this, nor am I pushing anyone by making decisions for them. I'm just trying to provide information to let everyone make their own more-informed choices. Some have chosen to just turn updates off entirely, others follow my list adamantly, whilst others do their own thing. That's the beauty of having a choice.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/17/microsoft_windows_10_upgrade_gwx_vs_humanity/

Microsoft uses techniques similar to aggressive malware to promote its “Get Windows 10” offer.

As many readers have discovered, the persistent and constantly changing methods Microsoft uses to continually reintroduce its “Get Windows 10” tool, or GWX, onto computers means it’s extremely difficult to avoid.

...

GWX subverts a channel intended for one purpose (security hotfixes) for another (advertising); it changes its “attack vectors”, it “conceals itself” kinda like a rootkit; it uses “polymorphic” techniques; and it consistently overrides users' actions and permissions.

...

Much of the attention in the tech press on combatting GWX has been has focused on eliminating the work of one patch, KB3035583, which constantly reappears on users' PCs, even after removal. However, an investigation shows that ‘583 is a symptom, rather than the cause, of recurring GWX infestations.

The ‘583 patch is most commonly reinstalled by another patch, KB2952664. Once ‘664 is on a system, '583 will be requested for download and installation. Getting rid of, and thereby controlling, '664 could be the key to controlling the sophisticated "Get Windows 10" nagware network.

...

Studying the behaviour of the ‘664 patch explains why controlling GWX is so difficult. The ‘664 patch constantly “mutates” – it is frequently revised to contain a new payload. Microsoft has not documented its behaviour, and has over the years removed explanations of what KB patches actually do.

...

Windows Update considers each revision to the patch to be a new install instance. So every time Microsoft changes the KB2952664 update nomenclature, all previous attempts by the user to block the update are invalidated.

Many users are unaware that uninstalling either KB3035583 or KB295266 only uninstalls a single revision of the patch; later, the patch can reinstall itself using an alternate revision number due to the fact that KB2952664 is being cached in C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download. A filtered registry dump on our test machine revealed there were more than 80 registry entries relating to the installation of ‘583 and ‘664, located mostly in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Component Based Servicing\PackageDetect and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Component Based Servicing\Packages

...

“The lack of transparency, specifically regarding documetation, creates huge problems for business users. The biggest beef I might have with that s that it’s a 'lie of omission'” says Pott, because for many patches, the documentation doesn't disclose the full extent of their behaviour.

“Microsoft is decreasing the number of versions of windows and removing user options for how they control, delay, prune, filter or throttle patches,” says Pott. "Sysadmins want clarity on what's in patches and control over all aspects of their systems – it's a pack of vague lies, outright lies and misinformation.”

...

Microsoft has been keen to stress that cloud computing won’t succeed without the public’s trust. But its use of hyper-aggressive malware techniques in its GWX, and lack of transparency, suggests it needs to do much to clean up its own backyard.

I found this to be an interesting article. Especially the part where it's not enough to just simply uninstall the (apparently) one instance of 2664 or 5583--if you don't get every mention and reference to it removed, they'll just come right back.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Bring Your Own Dilemma: OEM Laptops and Windows 10 Security


Late last year, Duo Labs, the security research team of Duo Security, purchased a stack of OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) laptops to see how secure they were. Some problems immediately jumped out at us, like the eDellRoot issue, but a few other issues took a bit more sorting through.

The main takeaways include:
** Network protocol-related security issues affected all laptops, starting from as soon as the laptop appeared on the network during initial boot.

** After Patch Tuesday updates, many privacy settings that were adjusted were reset to their default settings - without any notification to the end user.

** One particular finding: McAfee is using web bugs that can be used to track and serve advertising to users. In our opinion, this is the only purpose these web bugs serve. In addition, it is against security best practices to trust third party sites and allow them to load content. It puts users at risk and benefits only the vendor and advertisers.

Default laptop settings and protocols make it easier for an attacker to sniff, grab, view and redirect the unsuspecting laptop user’s traffic for illicit purposes. Attackers can steal online bank account passwords, view company data and more due to default firewall settings and services that are exposed on the network.

Default Settings Compromise Privacy
There are a lot of new features in Windows 8 and 10 that collect data about the user and laptop. Some of that data is uploaded to Microsoft and OEM vendor servers. On Windows 8, there are five screens of privacy settings, and on Windows 10 there are thirteen.

All of them are on by default. Many of the applications and services connected to these privacy settings start phoning home as soon as the laptop is connected to a network, before you are logged in. For anyone concerned about privacy, it would be ideal to have a chance to opt out - particularly when it’s not obvious that the collection and uploading of data is even happening.

Turning them off seems like it would be a straight-forward process, but in some cases it requires either a service to be disabled or registry keys created/adjusted. So, an average user either wouldn’t know how to do it, wouldn’t think to do it, or both.

Additionally, when some of these applications and services get updated on Patch Tuesday, they resort to their default settings - without warning. This means every Patch Tuesday you will have to be in the habit of checking those privacy settings to ensure they stay off.

Data Collection Privacy Concerns
Encrypted network traffic was not examined, although after some investigation it was possible to tell at least the type of data being transmitted back to a Microsoft or OEM vendor server. It might give one comfort to know that virtually all privacy-related data was encrypted before transmission, but the data is still being collected nonetheless.

I understand the desire of the vendors to collect data to improve their products, I would just prefer to not be opted in without consent, particularly after I’ve adjusted the privacy settings with the explicit intent to stop data collection.

Their full technical paper (PDF) advises:

* Remove McAfee and set up Windows Defender
* Adjust firewalls to stop the transmission of data
* Disable settings for Windows privacy
* Disable and delete OEM apps that gather data

And how to configure advanced security settings, including:

* Disable Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR), Smart Multi-Homed Name Resolution, Web Proxy Auto-Discovery (WPAD), Teredo Tunneling and Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) since all are on by default (!)
* Other low-level privacy setting adjustments

---

I run block stock 7.
All updates disabled. I never even tried to download any service packages.

It still works. It works really well.

It is getting harder to find pristine versions of it online, so I have the CD available at all times.
Not that it is easily corrupted, but just in case.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Unlike what M$ has stated, business users are also adversely affected.
From that same article
How Microsoft copied malware techniques to make Get Windows 10 the world's PC pest

"Our resident sysadmin blogger Trevor Pott advises network administrators to take three steps. Firstly, push the registry change via a Group Policy Object (GPO). Secondly, make sure that the GWX patches are not installed. Thirdly, block them in Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)."

"Microsoft’s official position is this. The company told us:
For IT administrators, it is possible to disable the upgrade using Group Policy settings or by using the DisableUpgrade registry key." <not my emphasis>

The author follows that up with this ominous fact:
"But that is far from the full picture. The advice doesn’t address the fact that GWX mutates and removing those updates ultimately fails to prevent GWX reappearing." <my emphasis>

"Mutates", isn't that the purview of malware?

For those who know that they will be re-installing Win7, 8, or 8.1, or even for those who just want to be prepared, take a look at NTLite. I've used this to slipstream XP. The upside is that it will reduce the CPU and RAM constraints from updating. The downside is that you will need to manually download each update. However, you will have the choice to not install everything. For example, if you don't want IE installed, you can check that off. You are afforded options that the Win install disc doesn't provide.

Here is an article on gaining more control on Automatic Updates. It covers Win10 through Vista.

I suppose I might consider Linux...but for now that learning curve is far too great for me to address.

Linux was quite difficult for while, but it's a doddle these days with the graphic desktops. I found it easier to install than Windows (the fact that I installed it on six different boards with four different WLAN devices and it flawlessly got both the wired/wireless networking, and audio, running on all of them was a deciding factor.) You can solve 90% or more of any issues you may have with a quick Google, and it's well-known for having a very helpful online community if you're really stuck.

Come to the Dark Side... we have cookies. :^)

---

I suppose I might consider Linux...but for now that learning curve is far too great for me to address.

Linux was quite difficult for while, but it's a doddle these days with the graphic desktops. I found it easier to install than Windows (the fact that I installed it on six different boards with four different WLAN devices and it flawlessly got both the wired/wireless networking, and audio, running on all of them was a deciding factor.) You can solve 90% or more of any issues you may have with a quick Google, and it's well-known for having a very helpful online community if you're really stuck.

Come to the Dark Side... we have cookies. :^)

I'm glad that you "easily" made the switch to Linux; I STILL have misgivings about Linux!!! The fact remains, that if you want Apache OpenOffice over LibreOffice; you MUST use 30 Command Lines to remove LibreOffice, and another 30 Command Lines to Install OpenOffice!!! I KNOW, I've DONE IT!!! I'm NOT happy that it took 30 Command Lines to do this!!! :-(

UNTIL Linux, (ALL Flavors and Distributions), standardize and use Double Click to Install 3rd Party Programs I AM NOT switching to Linux!!!

I DO; however, HIGHLY recommend MAC OS X as an alternative! They use Double Click to Install ALL Apps and Programs!!!

Whether done through Hackintosh; or, if money permits, buying a real MAC, GET OS X and begin LIVING FREE!!!!! :-)


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

I keep things simple and get about 90% of my software from Mint's Software Manager. Search > double-click > installed.

I'm curious - why did you want to run OpenOffice over LibreOffice? It's my understanding that OpenOffice is practically a dead product. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2913764/openoffice-development-is-looking-grim-as-developers-flock-to-libreoffice.html

I'm glad that you "easily" made the switch to Linux; I STILL have misgivings about Linux!!! The fact remains, that if you want Apache OpenOffice over LibreOffice; you MUST use 30 Command Lines to remove LibreOffice, and another 30 Command Lines to Install OpenOffice!!! I KNOW, I've DONE IT!!! I'm NOT happy that it took 30 Command Lines to do this!!! :-(

UNTIL Linux, (ALL Flavors and Distributions), standardize and use Double Click to Install 3rd Party Programs I AM NOT switching to Linux!!!

I DO; however, HIGHLY recommend MAC OS X as an alternative! They use Double Click to Install ALL Apps and Programs!!!

Whether done through Hackintosh; or, if money permits, buying a real MAC, GET OS X and begin LIVING FREE!!!!! :-)


TL

I keep things simple and get about 90% of my software from Mint's Software Manager. Search > double-click > installed.

I'm curious - why did you want to run OpenOffice over LibreOffice? It's my understanding that OpenOffice is practically a dead product. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2913764/openoffice-development-is-looking-grim-as-developers-flock-to-libreoffice.html

I'm glad that you "easily" made the switch to Linux; I STILL have misgivings about Linux!!! The fact remains, that if you want Apache OpenOffice over LibreOffice; you MUST use 30 Command Lines to remove LibreOffice, and another 30 Command Lines to Install OpenOffice!!! I KNOW, I've DONE IT!!! I'm NOT happy that it took 30 Command Lines to do this!!! :-(

UNTIL Linux, (ALL Flavors and Distributions), standardize and use Double Click to Install 3rd Party Programs I AM NOT switching to Linux!!!

I DO; however, HIGHLY recommend MAC OS X as an alternative! They use Double Click to Install ALL Apps and Programs!!!

Whether done through Hackintosh; or, if money permits, buying a real MAC, GET OS X and begin LIVING FREE!!!!! :-)


TL

Because, at the time that I NEEDED to do this, LibreOffice DID NOT have "Save as: .doc" as an option for documents. It does now; but, NOT when I was using Ubuntu 12.04... So, I chose OpenOffice; which DID, and STILL DOES, "Save as: .doc" LibreOffice would open a .doc file; but, WOULD NOT save as .doc.

Further; since you mention Software Manager, I DARE you to try Upgrading BOINC via Software Manager... In Ubuntu, 12.04 and 14.04 I tried; it took another 30 Command Lines, (that Juha helped me with), to alter Software Manager to be able to even see that there were BOINC versions ABOVE 7.0.65 for Linux!!!

I HATE COMMAND LINE!!!! MAC OS X does NOT require the average user to know ANY command line. EVERYTHING is done via GUI and Double Click! NOT Linux!!!


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

I HATE COMMAND LINE!!!! MAC OS X does NOT require the average user to know ANY command line. EVERYTHING is done via GUI and Double Click! NOT Linux!!!


TL

I wish that was true, but I had to use the terminal a lot when I had my iMac.

---

I can't speak to specific older versions, but LibreOffice has been able to save as .doc for a very long time.

As for BOINC, if you install the version supplied by your distribution, it can be upgraded with a mouse click. I don't use the version supplied by Mint, I use the version supplied by seti@home. It works perfectly for me.

I understand you aren't comfortable with Linux, but it really isn't the nightmare you're making it out to be. Like you, I'm no fan of the command line. It's very rare for me to need it. I do agree with you that MAC OS is extremely user-friendly.

Because, at the time that I NEEDED to do this, LibreOffice DID NOT have "Save as: .doc" as an option for documents. It does now; but, NOT when I was using Ubuntu 12.04... So, I chose OpenOffice; which DID, and STILL DOES, "Save as: .doc" LibreOffice would open a .doc file; but, WOULD NOT save as .doc.

Further; since you mention Software Manager, I DARE you to try Upgrading BOINC via Software Manager... In Ubuntu, 12.04 and 14.04 I tried; it took another 30 Command Lines, (that Juha helped me with), to alter Software Manager to be able to even see that there were BOINC versions ABOVE 7.0.65 for Linux!!!

I HATE COMMAND LINE!!!! MAC OS X does NOT require the average user to know ANY command line. EVERYTHING is done via GUI and Double Click! NOT Linux!!!


TL

I HATE COMMAND LINE!!!! MAC OS X does NOT require the average user to know ANY command line. EVERYTHING is done via GUI and Double Click! NOT Linux!!!


TL

I wish that was true, but I had to use the terminal a lot when I had my iMac.

I've probably had to use the command line more on MacOSX lately than on My Linux or Windows installations (And I do use the command line on all 3). It's not that there weren't GUIs for what I needed to do on these, but more that they tended to take more time if done the GUI way. The Windows GUI tended to annoying, The (Various) Linux GUI Ugly to broken, and the Mac one to patronising shiny-hipsterish-obnoxious, so probably command lines are meant for me, lol.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

All I know is now that I have MAC OS X on my PC, THAT is my main OS! I may yet still upgrade my Win 7 Pro to Win 10 Pro; but, now I have a choice in what I can use!!! ...And, I choose MAC! I find it cleaner, easier, and for what I need to do, NO COMMAND LINE!!! Maybe a Ping once in awhile, but that's it.

I absolutely HATE and DISAGREE with what MS has done, and is continuing to do, with Windows. I don't see this direction changing anytime soon. So, again, now that I have access to MAC OS X, I will be making use of this.

For those of you who DON'T HATE Command Line, and are familiar with the Linux Command Line structure, more power to you. I cannot understand the structure, I WILL NOT take the time to learn it. It took me years to master DOS up to 6.22, Windows from 3.11 for Workgroups all the way to Win 10. I DON'T want to have to know what I know about computers! I would LOVE to be an average user, just pointing and clicking to get my way through things. NOW with MAC OS, I can do just that! NOW, I DON'T have to be burdened with being a Tech Head! If I choose to learn something in MAC OS that I didn't know before, or if I one day choose to learn MAC OS Command Line; I will cross that bridge when I get there.

For now, I can be what I wanted to be from the start. An average everyday Joe User! And, should my hardware die, I will just have to save money to replace said hardware and create a Hackintosh all over again. It's cheaper to build a PC and convert it to run MAC OS than it is to buy a real MAC. That's a sad state of affairs... Jobs should NEVER have killed the MAC Clone Manufacturers; but, that was his choice, and it gave birth to the Hackintosh Community. Needs will be filled...

For me, I don't find Linux pleasing. Can you run QuickBooks??? I don't think so... No native games are available... At least with MAC OS, there are games available, QuickBooks is available. Things that make a computer usable to the AVERAGE Joe are AVAILABLE on MAC OS X. I just don't find this true of Linux.

Linux still has a LOOOOOOONG road ahead before it becomes a main stream OS for the AVERAGE User. When it implements and standardizes Double Click to Install ALL programs THEN the Average Joe may consider switching to Linux.

Those whom are SUPERIOR Tech Heads, and I guess that MANY of you here are in that category, I AM NOT ONE - stay with Linux over Windows. That is your choice. I find Linux FRUSTRATING beyond belief! There would be NO WAY I could convince my parents to switch to Linux, NOR my sister... (Sis has a REAL iMAC.) For my parents, they are stuck with what they know, and that's Windows. I choose MAC first, then Windows.

Freedom is CHOICE! Thank God we have choice and freedom. MS would try to convince us there is no choice. I say go MAC! The rest of you here seem to be for Linux. We will agree to disagree, again CHOICE!


TL

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

Lotta shoutin' goin' on ...

---

For those of you who DON'T HATE Command Line, and are familiar with the Linux Command Line structure, more power to you.

Many end users abhor the CL. Back in the day, it was necessary. Today, outside of systems administration, not so much. However, there are times when the CL is necessary simply because of its ability to be more granular with its operation.

Can you run QuickBooks??? I don't think so...

Yes...to a point.

No native games are available...

Not quite
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list, also 5 Best Native Linux Games

And this just published on Feb 05, 2016
Linux gaming rising: 35 great games for Steam Machines and Linux

From the above article:
"For the first time in a long time, Linux gamers have a reason to smile. Gaming on the open-source operating system has long meant dabbling in Wine and arcane workarounds, but ever since Valve launched Steam for Linux a year-and-a-half ago the number of native Linux games has positively exploded." <not my emphasis>

The second link is an article titled "Steam for Linux tops 700 games as big-name games increasingly call it home"

Steam is a hub for Linux games.

I'm neither a gamer nor a Linux shill, just offering some info. The bottom line is that, at present, you found what works for you and that it allows you to crunch for a good cause.

I HATE COMMAND LINE!!!! MAC OS X does NOT require the average user to know ANY command line. EVERYTHING is done via GUI and Double Click! NOT Linux!!!


TL

I wish that was true, but I had to use the terminal a lot when I had my iMac.

I've probably had to use the command line more on MacOSX lately than on My Linux or Windows installations (And I do use the command line on all 3). It's not that there weren't GUIs for what I needed to do on these, but more that they tended to take more time if done the GUI way. The Windows GUI tended to annoying, The (Various) Linux GUI Ugly to broken, and the Mac one to patronising shiny-hipsterish-obnoxious, so probably command lines are meant for me, lol.

Those of us who go back to the "Turkey Day Finder" remember the "programmer's switch" on our Macs that dropped you into the debugger. There wasn't a command line in that version, and you needed a LISA for code development. I'm not a normal user so how often I use the command line isn't a datum. But as TL says, a normal user on a mac may never know that there is a command line.

---