Question:
If Windows 2000 had been the "standard" OS on new PCs before you made the move to Linux, would you have made the move?
By this I mean if, for the same price, you could have a bought a new PC with Win2k preinstalled vice the vomitous 9.x crap.
i loved win2000 and used it for a while and never had any problems with it
my main issue with windows was the fact that i was sick and tired of it's look and how u could hardly change it and that's why i first tried linux.. because i saw it a friend's house and it looked cool as hell.
I think I would, but it would've been definitly harder. But in the long end, learning standard UNIX tools and having software you don't need to pay for is just better for a person who has not much money (like myself)
When I switched, I had used all the WIn's that are out today. If my main intention of switching had to do with the structure and stabilty, I probably would have stayed with 2K. Windows itself was the reason I swithced, plus learning *NIX since it's popularity is growing within businesses. Running Win as a server, development studio, 3D image studio, or a multimedia editing solution can get pretty damn expensive, and very limited in it's flexability vs. Linux.
Honestly, no I tried Win2k and I disliked it - I liked Windows 98SEthe most of all the M$ OS' I've used and even that lacked that extra Umpf.
[quote author=GnuVince link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44849 date=1028740481]
and having software you don't need to pay for is just better for a person who has not much money (like myself)
[/quote]
but was that really a problem for u when u were still using windows? i never paid for any software when i used windows and i could get my hands on anything i needed really
[quote author=Ralinx link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44855 date=1028745451]
[quote author=GnuVince link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44849 date=1028740481]
and having software you don't need to pay for is just better for a person who has not much money (like myself)
[/quote]
but was that really a problem for u when u were still using windows? i never paid for any software when i used windows and i could get my hands on anything i needed really
[/quote]
Well, it is a problem for me because I will not steal software, even from a vile and evil company like Microsoft.
Nope, I deleted the partition that housed Win2K to make room for Libranet. Supporting WinDoze users / servers at work was what gave me the nudge to Linux.
Lots of little things just added up. Service packs that fix A, but break B. Micro$oft passport, WinDoze update, having to connect a server to the internetbecause that was the only way to get something downloaded thanks to nutzo practices at the far end. Having to take it their way...
I have to take it their way at work, I'm not about to at home. Besides I'm really hoping Linux keeps progressing, and I can move on in the working world too.
[quote author=Ralinx link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44855 date=1028745451]
[quote author=GnuVince link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44849 date=1028740481]
and having software you don't need to pay for is just better for a person who has not much money (like myself)
[/quote]
but was that really a problem for u when u were still using windows? i never paid for any software when i used windows and i could get my hands on anything i needed really
[/quote]
I never was into warez. This is illegal.
[quote author=cga link=board=12;threadid=4491;start=0#44845 date=1028736780]
Question:
If Windows 2000 had been the "standard" OS on new PCs before you made the move to Linux, would you have made the move?
By this I mean if, for the same price, you could have a bought a new PC with Win2k preinstalled vice the vomitous 9.x crap.
[/quote]
Linux seemed kind of a cool prospect at the time. I had no real problem with windows other than the fact that I was bored to tears with it.
Really, to answer your question, no - I would have been bored with win2k too had it been available when I went to linux.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks