Okay, lets see...
Bluemage: I'm a junior enlistedman in the US Navy. My entire life revolves around being mobile - I can't afford a desktop system. Laptops are the only
way for me to go, no matter how small they make the desktop units. And I have already had some experience regarding downgrading from Vista. I recently
purchased a Toshiba Satellite A355D series laptop. Sweet little midrange laptop with an AMD processor and an ATI GPU. Trouble is, due to MS's and
Toshiba's shenanigans, AMD was unable to offer the proper video drivers. I had to resort to the extraordinary measure of using a free 3rd party software to
modify existing ATI Catalyst drivers to work on my laptop. Fortunately, the results were perfect. Unfortunately, this driver issue seems to extend to Linux
platforms, which is grossly negligent considering that both AMD and Toshiba supposedly support Linux. If BS like this continues I got three words for you:
Class Action Lawsuit. Don't think it won't happen if this negligence carries on. AMD and Toshiba are obligated to provide alternate avenues. To do so
otherwise is to stifle the growth of competition that Microsoft has.
That, of course, leads into this: at what point do we see any sort of contractual agreement stating that, upon the purchase of a computer we are obligated to
use only Brand X's operating systems? In a ways, that is what companies like Microsoft, Toshiba, and AMD are shoe-horning us into. The only reason I'm
not returning this laptop is because I blew good money on it and I like the features it comes with - it's a perfect fit for my lifestyle and how I use a
computer. That, and I've also put in a good effort into getting it working the way I want it to. It was a huge effort on my part (and on the parts of the
people that made the driver fixes), but it was worth it in the end. However, it should not have been this difficult.
In regards to using multiple OSes, I just partition out my hard drive - however many partitions for however many OSes I have (usually about 30-40 gigs each),
and then one common partition for all my documents - and then multi-boot. XP-64 is remaining my default platform while I've been struggling to get Ubuntu
to function properly over on the next partition. I my with my have another one set aside for when the independently thinking Mac lovers figure out how to get
their OS to work on AMD chips, but I'll use it for Windows 7 until they get around to it. As long as I got one OS to a partition with documents safely
tucked away on a separate one, I don't have to worry about screwing one of them up.
ECSNorway: Linux is great at customization. That is something that I certainly will not argue against. What deters me, however, is the level of expertise
require before you can get that really awesome custom-fitted GUI. The folks at Canonical are really trying hard with Ubuntu, but it's still falling a bit
short. I was unable to import new elements which apparently requires some specific know-how. A tutorial for beginners (read as: n00b) -would- be nice at the
very least. Not to mention that it does not go to the level of customization, i.e.: having a Mac style launcher bar in Gnome.
CattyNebulart: XP, from what I have experienced, has come a long, long way and is a huge improvement over ME (which is simply a revamped version of Windows
98). It's even smoother than Windows 2000 was, and that is definitely saying something. Xp-64 just improves upon this. Any issues that I have are solely
involved with 3rd party software (such as Winamp).
jpub: I already know that Windows 7 is the Vista that should have been - that's part of what makes this so damn annoying. It's kinda like what we say
back in boot camp: "If you are wrong, then stay wrong!" Because making that last minute correction just makes things look even worse. Trust me,
it's true. Windows 7 coming so soon like this makes it feels like one of those last minute corrections, much like how SP1 for Vista came out within a
matter of weeks after it Vista itself was released. I already understand that it's SUPPOSED to be a huge improvement, but I'll choose to wait and see.
As I mentioned before, Microsoft has a history concerning their beta releases. The Betas themselves usually seem fine, but when the final release comes out,
it's full of bugs from new features that never got worked out. For this reason, I'll wait at least until SP1 comes out for Windows 7 before switching.
But if SP1 comes out ridiculously soon like Vista's did, then I'll wait a bit longer.
All the arguments I've heard have swayed me somewhat. I'm still a bit leery of Microsoft, especially the way they like to get other companies into
supporting only their 'Modern' operating systems. But I'll go ahead and give Windows 7 a whirl. Just don't expect me to pay for it up front.
(Hint: I'm actually seriously considering paying for my copy of XP-64 - it's just working so nicely. In other words I refuse to pay for crap.)
Bluemage: I'm a junior enlistedman in the US Navy. My entire life revolves around being mobile - I can't afford a desktop system. Laptops are the only
way for me to go, no matter how small they make the desktop units. And I have already had some experience regarding downgrading from Vista. I recently
purchased a Toshiba Satellite A355D series laptop. Sweet little midrange laptop with an AMD processor and an ATI GPU. Trouble is, due to MS's and
Toshiba's shenanigans, AMD was unable to offer the proper video drivers. I had to resort to the extraordinary measure of using a free 3rd party software to
modify existing ATI Catalyst drivers to work on my laptop. Fortunately, the results were perfect. Unfortunately, this driver issue seems to extend to Linux
platforms, which is grossly negligent considering that both AMD and Toshiba supposedly support Linux. If BS like this continues I got three words for you:
Class Action Lawsuit. Don't think it won't happen if this negligence carries on. AMD and Toshiba are obligated to provide alternate avenues. To do so
otherwise is to stifle the growth of competition that Microsoft has.
That, of course, leads into this: at what point do we see any sort of contractual agreement stating that, upon the purchase of a computer we are obligated to
use only Brand X's operating systems? In a ways, that is what companies like Microsoft, Toshiba, and AMD are shoe-horning us into. The only reason I'm
not returning this laptop is because I blew good money on it and I like the features it comes with - it's a perfect fit for my lifestyle and how I use a
computer. That, and I've also put in a good effort into getting it working the way I want it to. It was a huge effort on my part (and on the parts of the
people that made the driver fixes), but it was worth it in the end. However, it should not have been this difficult.
In regards to using multiple OSes, I just partition out my hard drive - however many partitions for however many OSes I have (usually about 30-40 gigs each),
and then one common partition for all my documents - and then multi-boot. XP-64 is remaining my default platform while I've been struggling to get Ubuntu
to function properly over on the next partition. I my with my have another one set aside for when the independently thinking Mac lovers figure out how to get
their OS to work on AMD chips, but I'll use it for Windows 7 until they get around to it. As long as I got one OS to a partition with documents safely
tucked away on a separate one, I don't have to worry about screwing one of them up.
ECSNorway: Linux is great at customization. That is something that I certainly will not argue against. What deters me, however, is the level of expertise
require before you can get that really awesome custom-fitted GUI. The folks at Canonical are really trying hard with Ubuntu, but it's still falling a bit
short. I was unable to import new elements which apparently requires some specific know-how. A tutorial for beginners (read as: n00b) -would- be nice at the
very least. Not to mention that it does not go to the level of customization, i.e.: having a Mac style launcher bar in Gnome.
CattyNebulart: XP, from what I have experienced, has come a long, long way and is a huge improvement over ME (which is simply a revamped version of Windows
98). It's even smoother than Windows 2000 was, and that is definitely saying something. Xp-64 just improves upon this. Any issues that I have are solely
involved with 3rd party software (such as Winamp).
jpub: I already know that Windows 7 is the Vista that should have been - that's part of what makes this so damn annoying. It's kinda like what we say
back in boot camp: "If you are wrong, then stay wrong!" Because making that last minute correction just makes things look even worse. Trust me,
it's true. Windows 7 coming so soon like this makes it feels like one of those last minute corrections, much like how SP1 for Vista came out within a
matter of weeks after it Vista itself was released. I already understand that it's SUPPOSED to be a huge improvement, but I'll choose to wait and see.
As I mentioned before, Microsoft has a history concerning their beta releases. The Betas themselves usually seem fine, but when the final release comes out,
it's full of bugs from new features that never got worked out. For this reason, I'll wait at least until SP1 comes out for Windows 7 before switching.
But if SP1 comes out ridiculously soon like Vista's did, then I'll wait a bit longer.
All the arguments I've heard have swayed me somewhat. I'm still a bit leery of Microsoft, especially the way they like to get other companies into
supporting only their 'Modern' operating systems. But I'll go ahead and give Windows 7 a whirl. Just don't expect me to pay for it up front.
(Hint: I'm actually seriously considering paying for my copy of XP-64 - it's just working so nicely. In other words I refuse to pay for crap.)