New OS on Old Computer?

[dualstow]

From the Mac Airbook (sic) thread:

The thing that kills me is that you cannot put the wonderful OS X on your own hardware (save those of you who are smart enough to maintain a "hackintosh").

I used to say, "if you could do that, people would stop buying Apple's hardware!"

But looking at the state of the PC market, I'm not so sure anymore. Most of what they sell is just complete crap, if my recent experiences buying and using modern PC laptops is any indication. And the Linux experience shows that 99% of people aren't willing to install a different OS than what the machine came with.

My recommendation: Don't put Windows on your laptop, or at least not Windows 8. I don't know if you've used 8, but it's just a complete train wreck.

Hi PS. I was thinking about installing Windows 7, not 8, as 8 is generally not recommended by the columnists I was reading.

I'm curious about your statement, "And the Linux experience shows that 99% of people aren't willing to install a different OS than what the machine came with."
I did notice that a lot of people, including me, had problems with Linux on old Windows boxes, despite it being so often touted as running well on old machines. It would not even install on my XP machine, so I bought a computer from a manufacturer (ZaReason) that builds with Linux in mind. They also install the OS of your choice before shipping, so I had them put Mint on there.

I took your statement above to mean that most Windows users are unwilling to erase Windows and install Linux. But, don't a ton of people dual boot? And don't even more people dual-boot Windows and OS X or is that a thing of the past? Maybe it's giving way to virtualization these days.

At first I thought you mean people don't even want to replace, say, XP with Vista or Win 7, but then you wouldn't have begun "The Linux experience shows..."

I didn't think changing OSs was so different from dual-booting. And, despite my problems getting Linux to run on a Gateway machine (the XP box), I feel optimistic that Windows 7 would run on my youngish (2010-born) linux machine. At least there's nothing inside that would *purposely hinder* Windows, but maybe I'm kidding myself and there are compatibility issues.

I figure I can do a free trial and if it doesn't work out, I'll just wipe the slate clean and try yet another flavor of Linux. Manjaro looks tempting.

[Coffee]

Linux is a big joke, unless you're a computer nerd who likes spending time "fixing problems" rather than getting work done.  (No offense to present company).

It's nowhere near ready for prime time.  Half the time, it won't even plug and play your monitor.  I've tried it on several machines, and it's either one thing or another.  At least with Windows, it works out of the box.

[Pointedstick]

All bets are off for computer nerd types, like you and me and probably most people here. I'm talking about the average Joe, people who are more likely to hire one of us to do computer work for them. The idea of putting in a Linux CD and installing a totally different operating system--whether as the primary OS or in a dual-boot environment--is just totally foreign and scary. The average customer buys a computer and accept what operating system comes with it, perhaps upgrading when the vendor comes out with a new one. It's a rare breed of person who takes the initiative to investigate alternative operating systems on their existing hardware, or even buys hardware specifically for that purpose.

My wife has a Windows 8 laptop for games and finds 8 to be incredibly frustrating, but says that dual-booting and using Windows for games and Linux for everything else would be even more annoying. On the other hand, she does like Linux and tells me that once Steam manages to get game publishers to port all their games to Linux, she'll be more than happy to use just Linux.

The pool of Mac users who want to run Windows seems to be dwindling as Apple becomes more dominant and more people write software for the Mac and especially the iOS platform. And for critical windows-only software, virtualization is way easier and more convenient. But again we're talking about computer nerds here. I tried to talk my dad into letting me set him up with a windows VM so he could play an ancient Windows game he had some nostalgia for and he looked at me like I was made of bees. It would be like trying to convince your mother to convert her minivan to run from an onboard biodiesel gasifier. Too "out there."

[Pointedstick]

Linux is a big joke, unless you're a computer nerd who likes spending time "fixing problems" rather than getting work done.  (No offense to present company).

It's nowhere near ready for prime time.  Half the time, it won't even plug and play your monitor.  I've tried it on several machines, and it's either one thing or another.  At least with Windows, it works out of the box.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences, but mine couldn't be more different. My personal experience with desktop computers and Ubuntu-based Linux distros has been very good; pretty much everything has always worked as it should, it's modern laptops that I've had more problems with, especially less popular ones, however Linux Mint works flawlessly on my MacBook Air, which was a complete surprise.  I don't think I've had to fiddle with anything at all.

And my primary machine is a homebuilt box, and again, everything works great with Linux Mint. Mouse, keyboard, monitor, SSD, scanner, printer, etc. Everything just functions properly. I wouldn't be able to use it for work if I was constantly fiddling with crap!

Many years ago I remember things being much rougher when I briefly experimented with various distros, but things seem a lot better these days. I highly recommend Linux Mint. It's really good. Strong community, excited developers, polished user interface, constant improvement every few months. I'm very satisfied.

[l82start]

I have played OS roulette with one of my old lap tops and a half dozen Linux OS, and ended up back on the windows vista i was having trouble with (i found a fix), i enjoyed playing with the Linux as a interesting "computer geek out", but it wasn't practical for fixing the problem i was having, and i found the  typical time consuming "fixing problems" complaint to be realistic..
for a simple use, simple box, laptop or computer i think Linux will beat some of the less popular versions of windows (vista and 8 ), but "plug anything in and go" is a big advantage on systems that you like to try new stuff on... 

[Pointedstick]

[...] but "plug anything in and go" is a big advantage on systems that you like to try new stuff on...

I guess I don't actually think this exists in the real world. Even with my Mac and and all the Windows machines I've ever helped people with, I don't think I've ever experienced the holy grail of "plug anything in and go". There's always something that requires at least a little bit of technical skill.

For example, every time family members have bought wireless printers, none of them have been able to get them on their wireless networks without my help. For that matter, half of them needed help setting up the wireless network (even the ones with Apple routers) and nearly all of them have networks called something like "linksys32" that use the password written on the bottom of the router. My father-in-law who has an iPad still can't figure out the simplest of tasks without in-person step-by-step instruction. My technically-savvy wife recently needed help transferring music from one computer to another and getting it all into iTunes in the correct place (oy, iTunes, don't even get me started…).

Ease-of-use is a noble goal, but it's ultimately an asymptotic ideal that will never be reached; using a highly complicated technical device will never cease to require some technical skill, patience, and a logical mind. Never. The way I see it, becoming more technically savvy is something that's under my control, whereas buying easier to use devices is mostly under the control of corporations, and I'll be paying more for the privilege. I'd rather improve myself and save money rather than become dependent on benevolent corporations and the charity or skill of technically-savvy friends and family members.

[l82start]

i suppose it is all relative, i have enough computer logic, tech savvy to make most anything work, so to me windows is easy to figure out, even if it involves a bit of "look it up" or "resort to reading the instructions" most of which are one search, top result, minimal computer literacy required..
  playing with Linux fixes is a different beast (it may have changed since i did it) it involves wading through posts on Linux geek forums, written in full on tech speak, then finding and adding the stuff some guy, someplace, who had the same problem and wrote a homemade fix for..

for a computer i use and mess with on a daily basis the first is easier (to me), for upping your skills and gaining the benefits of non corporate OS Linux is great, and fun to play with, if you like that sort of thing (i do) it also has some advantages for simple use computers.

[dualstow]

I appreciate all the replies.
Some good stuff here, especially

and he looked at me like I was made of bees.

(PS) // never heard that one before!

I have played OS roulette with one of my old lap tops

  (l82start) 

My first experience with Linux (Mint) was that function-PageUp & -PageDn never worked. For 3 years, I thought I had defective hardware (kbd) and then when I tried Ubuntu that same key combo worked just fine. On the other hand, I lost my wireless connection in Ubuntu and could not get back into my home network. I rebooted into my old Mint 10 OS and bam, the wireless connection was back, using the same password.

The only silver lining is that I think my hardware is ok.

In addition to losing wifi, Ubuntu crashed while I was doing nothing. I merely had the desktop screen on and was going to load chromium. So much for "Linux just works." I am jealous of those for whom it does. I didn't even have time to mess things up on my own in Terminal and take the blame. I was doing nothing.

Not giving up just yet, though.

[Pointedstick]

In addition to losing wifi, Ubuntu crashed while I was doing nothing. I merely had the desktop screen on and was going to load chromium. So much for "Linux just works." I am jealous of those for whom it does. I didn't even have time to mess things up on my own in Terminal and take the blame. I was doing nothing.

That's a pretty low standard for me! I think my Macs and all the Windows PCs I've ever have all done that at some point or other. On the Mac I'm using right now, whenever my son touches the power button--which is supposed to present a dialog box asking if you'd like to shut it down--the screen goes black and presents the spinning pinwheel of death. I can ssh into it and kill the WindowServer but it's just easier to hard reboot.

My Mint machine has never just randomly crashed like that. The worst problems I've had have been with the slightly buggy Banshee music player that sometimes freezes and needs to be restarted. Nothing iTunes doesn't do to me on a weekly basis. Oh, and with Mint 14 my Chromium windows would always open maximized. Fixed in Mint 15. I think that's about it.

[l82start]

for my Linux experience, i was trying to connect an old laptop (vista) to a new TV as a monitor to stream Netflix, and for some unknown reason the aspect ratios between the computer and the TV refused to cooperate, leaving me with a letterbox of the computer screen that was all squashed and useless for movies, i ran through a few different versions of Linux OS (mint Ubuntu etc) all of which immediately fixed the letterbox problem, but none of them (at that time) were compatible with Netflix streaming (argggh) after countless hours/days trying the various fixes available and dealing with other miscellaneous minor glitches, i gave up on getting them to run Netflix..... 

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, Netflix on Linux is a no-go, not because of anything wrong with Linux, but because Netflix uses Microsoft's Silverlight browser plug-in and Microsoft has declined to come out with a Linux version of Silverlight. Amusingly enough, even Microsoft's own IE browser doesn't support Silverlight in full-screen "Metro" mode on Windows 8.

In fact, Microsoft has announced that they're discontinuing Silverlight, and so Netflix is looking to move to HTML5 which will no longer require Silverlight and should work for everyone: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/htm ... tflix.html

There's hope!

[l82start]

i think my next linux project (if i ever have time) will be trying to set up an old win XP tower i have as a Linux VPN, i expect it wont be simple, or easy, especially with the age of the tower, but it seems like a fun project...

[Libertarian666]

Notebooks/laptops often contain weird devices that may not have Linux drivers. That's why they are harder to get working than desktops, which tend to use more standard devices.

[Pointedstick]

Notebooks/laptops often contain weird devices that may not have Linux drivers. That's why they are harder to get working than desktops, which tend to use more standard devices.

That's exactly why I was so surprised that my MacBook Air works so well with Mint.

[KevinW]

For my part, I've had a lot more of my work time wasted by Windows than by Linux.

I figure I can do a free trial and if it doesn't work out, I'll just wipe the slate clean and try yet another flavor of Linux. Manjaro looks tempting.

...i ran through a few different versions of Linux OS (mint Ubuntu etc)...

IMO Linux use goes more smoothly when you really commit to one* distro and invest time into learning how it works well enough that you can fix problems yourself as they come up. When you try to solve problems by switching distros and/or skimming superficial forum posts, the whole thing winds up feeling more flaky and mysterious than it really is. Like investing and interpersonal relationships, it pays to choose wisely and stick it out when things get a little rough.

I find it easier to run one of the major distributions since there is more of a critical mass of documentation, forum members, and tooling. Also I think the Linux community would be better off if it were less fragmented, so again I think the best policy is to run a major distro.

Finally I have had bad experiences with "derivative" distributions where packages are built by multiple teams that may or may not be on the same page. Which is a strike against Ubuntu and Mint in my book.

SO, I for a desktop I recommend running one of the top 5 distros on this list, unless you have a very good and specific reason not to:
http://distrowatch.com/search.php?ostyp ... tus=Active
(currently Debian, Mageia, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, and openSUSE). And then after you've made your choice, read the installation guide and maybe another instructional book cover to cover. It will pay off in the long run.

* Or maybe one distro per major category of computer. I'm running Fedora on desktops and Debian on servers.

[l82start]

IMO Linux use goes more smoothly when you really commit to one* distro and invest time into learning how it works well enough that you can fix problems yourself as they come up. When you try to solve problems by switching distros and/or skimming superficial forum posts, the whole thing winds up feeling more flaky and mysterious than it really is. Like investing and interpersonal relationships, it pays to choose wisely and stick it out when things get a little rough.

I find it easier to run one of the major distributions since there is more of a critical mass of documentation, forum members, and tooling. Also I think the Linux community would be better off if it were less fragmented, so again I think the best policy is to run a major distro.
Finally I have had bad experiences with "derivative" distributions where packages are built by multiple teams that may or may not be on the same page. Which is a strike against Ubuntu and Mint in my book.
SO, I for a desktop I recommend running one of the top 5 distros on this list, unless you have a very good and specific reason not to:
http://distrowatch.com/search.php?ostyp ... tus=Active
(currently Debian, Mageia, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, and openSUSE). And then after you've made your choice, read the installation guide and maybe another instructional book cover to cover. It will pay off in the long run.

* Or maybe one distro per major category of computer. I'm running Fedora on desktops and Debian on servers.

undoubtedly sound advice.... funny but that happens to be the exactly the site i was using to make selections for which OS to try and Ubuntu and Mint were near top of the list back then... i do have to admit some of the bouncing was driven by nerd curiosity, while some was driven by trying to find one that was Netflix streaming "fix" compatible... 
  the forum posts arn't bad but they do take time to figure out, i found search, read, search vocabulary for what you read, refine search, repeat, repeat,  repeat, till you get to the solution you are looking for, was necessary to make sense of it... with familiarity and a better OS vocabulary solving the little things that come up wouldn't have so much of a twilight zone alternate reality feel to it

[dualstow]

Your point is well taken, KevinW, except that since it's this early in the game, I think it's worthwhile to try out a few more distros to see if I like them before I commit. After all, using Mac OS X and Windows have never required much of a commitment, period, for me. I wasn't trying to solve the wireless problem by switching back to Mint so much as just diagnosing the problem. When wireless came back, I immediately new that my hardware was ok, in other words.

And, if you're running Fedora & Debian but have had problems with some other distros, it sounds like you've tried quite a few yourself (although, perhaps you nailed one down early before exploring further).

My guess is that I will try a few more flavors and then flake out again until things improve (or don't) a few years from now. Mac's Mavericks is due in a  couple months and I'll definitely want to play with that.

It's possible that I just don't have the brainpower to be a good Linux user, but dedication is not & will not be a problem. Part of the reason I am interested in Linux in the first place is that I want to learn how it all works, and it's harder to do that with a proprietary system. I know a lot of people are out there saying their grandmother uses Linux and that's great, but something tells me that the only patches Granny is creating on her own are those that she sews into Levi's. I think she's just using email & the web at most, not the terminal.

Finally, and I don't mean this in a rude way, but in another thread when you suggested that Linux is a voluntary & collaborative effort and that perhaps I could help solve the problems I was experiencing, I got the feeling that maybe experienced users are out of touch with complete novices. Yes, they were once newbies, too, but adults were once teenagers. I mean, I can hardly help fix linux when I barely understand posts about how to open a file and change the settings of something by messing with some arcane text.

Well, we'll see how Manjaro goes and then maybe Debian. By the way, I'm surprised you have Fedora on a desktop- isn't Fedora more for servers, or not necessarily?

[blackomen]

I've used Ubuntu since 2006 on the same desktop machine and have only had to reinstall once (in 2011).

I don't think I've ran into any problems that require more technical skill than the typical problem Windows users run into.  There's no "registry" to edit but you may need to open up a command line window once in a while to fix things.

While I know more about computers than the average person, I'm no computer nerd.

[KevinW]

And, if you're running Fedora & Debian but have had problems with some other distros, it sounds like you've tried quite a few yourself (although, perhaps you nailed one down early before exploring further).

Maybe the right term is being in a "committed open relationship." 

I did try out a bunch of distributions about 10 years ago before settling on those. And from time to time I do check out others. I recommend doing that inside a virtual machine using something like VirtualBox. That is a non-disruptive low-impact way of checking out other OSs. But I change native distros rarely, maybe something like once every 5 years, which is a long time in computing.

Finally, and I don't mean this in a rude way, but in another thread when you suggested that Linux is a voluntary & collaborative effort and that perhaps I could help solve the problems I was experiencing, I got the feeling that maybe experienced users are out of touch with complete novices. Yes, they were once newbies, too, but adults were once teenagers. I mean, I can hardly help fix linux when I barely understand posts about how to open a file and change the settings of something by messing with some arcane text.

I was being a bit pointed there because sometimes people confuse Linux distros, which are free volunteer efforts provided on an "as-is" basis, with paid-for consumer products where one can have a reasonable expectation of customer service. Indeed the licenses that govern open source software usually have a clause that says

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

or something to that effect.

So --- and this isn't meant in a rude way either, this is very matter of fact --- if Linux doesn't work the way you want, it's not really appropriate or productive to complain. It is what it is, which is the result of the volunteer efforts of people who chose to give their work away. If you don't like it your options are to put up with it, not use it, or volunteer to make it work the way you wished it did.

It's not at all like the situation with a paid vendor, where you're a client and their failure to perform is a kind of breach of contract that they are obligated to remedy. If you prefer a client-vendor relationship then by all means go with Apple or Google or someone, they're good at what they do.

By the way, I'm surprised you have Fedora on a desktop- isn't Fedora more for servers, or not necessarily?

Red Hat Inc. creates Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and sponsors Fedora. CentOS is a freebie community repackaging of RHEL. RHEL/CentOS is primarily a server OS but it can be used as a desktop. Fedora is primarily an end-user desktop OS but can be used as a server.

[Pointedstick]

What do you find to be the advantages of Fedora over Debian and its child distros, out of curiosity?

[KevinW]

Before Fedora I was running Ubuntu on desktops but got fed up with their increasingly heavy-handed unilateral decisions. The last straw was when they deleted "legacy" video drivers which rendered a daily-use computer unusable.

I'd love to use Debian for desktops as well as servers and simplify my life. But their "when it's ready" release schedule is hard to live with on a desktop. High-visibility software like browsers and video codecs gets impractically stale. The "find files" and "add network printer" utilities in wheezy are completely broken, which are dealbreakers for my workflow, and it will be years before the next release. Their decision to rebrand all the Mozilla products causes a lot of little annoyances.

Fedora releases on a calendar-based schedule, packages true Firefox, and all those little things work out of the box. Their package collection is smaller, though, and I need to install some things from source, which can be a pain. There's no free lunch.

[Pointedstick]

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record, but you might want to check out Mint sometime. It evolved out of pretty much the exact frustrations you're voicing. I am not affiliated with the project, FYI, I just really like it.

The Mint folks aren't dogmatic about stuff the way Ubuntu's people are, and as a result they don't rebrand Mozilla software, they include proprietary video drivers, dvd playback capability, QT and WMV video codecs, Flash, Java etc. All that stuff just works like it should. And the pace of change seems pretty swift to me. There are 2-3 new major releases per year. Network printing works great, and you can use the absolutely gigantic Ubuntu repositories which is clearly where the future is (Steam is on there for heaven's sake). As for finding files, for some reason gnome-search-tool isn't included in Mint but that's easy enough to install.

As a result of the GNOME 3 and Unity fiascos, Mint has its own desktop environment called Cinnamon that I really like. It feels kind of like an evolution of GNOME 2. Even when I was new to Linux I didn't like those DEs, feeling like the training wheels were still on. Cinnamon is not very mature yet but it's getting really good really fast IMHO. It was pretty rocky in Mint 13 but now in mint 15 it's very good. Then again I'll admit I haven't tried GNOME 3 in a few years, so maybe it's improved since then.

But generally, there's a good reason why Mint has been in the #1 spot on DistroWatch for several years running.

[dualstow]

I was being a bit pointed there because sometimes people confuse Linux distros, which are free volunteer efforts provided on an "as-is" basis, with paid-for consumer products where one can have a reasonable expectation of customer service. Indeed the licenses that govern open source software usually have a clause that says

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

or something to that effect.

So --- and this isn't meant in a rude way either, this is very matter of fact --- if Linux doesn't work the way you want, it's not really appropriate or productive to complain. It is what it is, which is the result of the volunteer efforts of people who chose to give their work away. If you don't like it your options are to put up with it, not use it, or volunteer to make it work the way you wished it did.

It's not at all like the situation with a paid vendor

All true. I think Canonical is trying to bring Linux to the masses, but your point is well taken. It's unfair to compare Ubuntu or other Linux OSs with companies who want you to buy their software and/or hardware.

I appreciate the reply.

[KevinW]

I'm probably going to sound like a broken record, but you might want to check out Mint sometime. It evolved out of pretty much the exact frustrations you're voicing. I am not affiliated with the project, FYI, I just really like it.

I'll add it to my docket of distros to check out next time I'm in that mood. But be forewarned, as described I am very slow to change. 

All true. I think Canonical is trying to bring Linux to the masses, but your point is well taken. It's unfair to compare Ubuntu or other Linux OSs with companies who want you to buy their software and/or hardware.

Yes, Canonical is trying to do that, but honestly I don't think it's a good idea. Just because Canonical (or anyone else) says Linux is ready for the masses doesn't make it so. I think all their slick marketing sets people up for disappointment. Expectations control...

[dualstow]

All true. I think Canonical is trying to bring Linux to the masses, but your point is well taken. It's unfair to compare Ubuntu or other Linux OSs with companies who want you to buy their software and/or hardware.

Yes, Canonical is trying to do that, but honestly I don't think it's a good idea. Just because Canonical (or anyone else) says Linux is ready for the masses doesn't make it so. I think all their slick marketing sets people up for disappointment. Expectations control...

Indeed. I brought them up because in my original "complaint" I was referring to Linux users who often say that Windows sucks and that "Linux just works." This was on an Ubuntu forum. Perhaps they are just a vocal minority; I don't know. But I was referring to them when I wrote that Mac just works, leading to your (understandable) point that it's unfair to compare free Linux to paid Mac.

I had a few problems with Mint, but I really like it. It was my first Linux experience and until recently, my only one.