In this thread I’m trying to find out what’s wrong with my computer. I’ve been told that I need to reinstall. I’ve also been told that ME sucks! I figure if I’ve got to reinstall, I might as well upgrade. I’m not that computer literate and have only used windows in the past. If I choose to get a new OS, what should I get? I mainly use my computer to serf the internet (ebay & SDMB), managing videos and music that I get from “friends”, editing and storing digital pictures of my family, and writing a letter or two.
As a geek, it pains me to recommend Windows XP, so I’m going to start with the Linux recommendations. Mandrake 9.1 is a no brainer install, stable and fun. I hear Red Hat is good for beginners, too. They give you everything you need, a lot you didn’t know you wanted and access to everything you could desire from a personal computer.
(Don’t flame me. I’m leaving Debian, Gentoo, FreeBSD and server functions out on purpose.)
If you buy a boxed set, it will run you $40-60 (US), or you can burn an iso image yourself for free. The learning curve with Linux for beginners is not that steep, and googling your question usually comes up with a plethora of answers.
However, if you are not willing to take the plunge, Windows XP is not that bad. My wife uses it and I noticed that although there were a couple bugs after the initial install, they were quickly followed by the offer of an update to be downloaded. After a couple updates, she has reported no problems.
Windows XP = easy to install, familiar, fairly (relative to Microsoft products) stable, and expensive.
Linux = easy to install (Mandrake, Red Hat or a beginner distro. Don’t try Gentoo, yet), KDE and Gnome offer familiarity, very stable, and cheap.
If you have an inquisitive mind, go with Mandrake. If you don’t want to tackle the learning curve, go with Windows XP.
lee
Have to add something else: follow on applications. Good applications for Windows cost money. Good applications for Linux cost the time it takes to download a package. Pick an application you might want, there is probably a very good, free product you can use.
Anti-virus software? Don’t need it. Viruses don’t affect Linux. Trojan horses (someone tricks you into executing a malicious file) do, but this whole open your email and infect the network thing don’t work.
Personal firewall? Part of the OS. Don’t have to buy one.
Web browser when Internet Explorer is not an option? Take your pick: Konqueror, Mozilla, Galeon, Opera (lurve my Opera browser).
Image editing? GIMP
MP3 player? XMMS
Ripper? Grip (And, unlike with Microsoft, you don’t have to download drivers that have been specifically omitted to reduce the quality of your digital copies).
Word Processor? (Heck, a there are three separate office suites)? OpenOffice.org, Koffice, Abiword
I’m evangelizing a bit, but you can’t imagine how much quality software comes with the different distros. Comparable funcitonality with Microsoft would cost you thousands of dollars. No exaggeration.
And fire Linux up on an older processor (like the 333Mhz laptop I use). Better resource management = can’t tell it’s an old processor.
Get a copy of Mandrake Linux 9.1. Or Red Hat 9.0 (or whatever is out now). it’s only $40 and you are going to love it. Start with KDE or GNOME, then try some of the other window managers until you find the one that makes you warm inside.
Try it.
You’ll love it.
lee
I have a hard time believing that there are absolutely NO viruses out there that effect any of the Linux distrubutions out there. Just because you hear about viruses and worms affecting Windows much more of the time doesn’t mean that there is nothing out there that will infect a Linux system.
Also, many of the programs listed for Linux above are also available for Windows users.
So the only real differences you are looking at are initial cost of the OS (Windows XP is definately more expensive) and a difference in the learning curve (Linux will be more challenging to adapt to if you have never used it before.)
Viruses are not an issue for Unix flavors. One could be written, but its effect would be so limited it would be negligible. They are simply not a danger. Trojan horses are a problem. Exploitation of common weaknesses are a problem. Viruses- well, the penguin has a built-on condom.
The point was that alternatives to programs available for Windows are available for Linux. Often, several alternatives are available. Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing.
Price was not the only real difference. Better resource managment (memory, swap) allow home users to extend the life of their computers. I’ve tried running Windows XP on a 400Mhz processor. Not fun. Linux on a 400Mhz processor feels the same as running on a 1Ghz. There’s an advantage.
Don’t discount the price advantage. Cost of the Operating System, Office Suite, Anti-Virus software, Personal Firewall; these alone are several hundred dollars. Compared to $40-60 for Linux. Mister, that’s a whole 'nother computer right there.
Another advantage is support. Most home users do not buy support with ther PCs. I have gotten much better linux support just using google than I ever did for Microsoft products.
I realize I was being evangelical, and if you are not interested in tackling the learning curve (and there is nothing wrong with you if you don’t; not everyone wants to learn a bunch about computers), I recommend XP. But if you have the slightest inclination for learning a little about computers, are tired of worrying about viruses, and would like to save several hundred dollars and still get a damned fine computer; Linux is something to try.
If you get XP, shell out the big bucks and get XP Pro, it’s more stable, than the home version based on what I’ve heard (which mainly comes from fellow Dopers, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt ;)). Also, you’ll need to check your hardware and software to make sure it’s XP compatible. Not all of it is, and it can cause problems for you, if you’re not careful. My TV Tuner card needed special drivers, which I didn’t install, and it wiped out my modem settings and a bunch of other things. I had to take the card out, do a complete reinstall of XP, download the drivers, then install the card and check everything to make sure it worked right. (It did.) Only took me a week to get all my software installed back on my machine and everything running the way I like it.
More than a grain of salt. The core of Windows XP Home and Windows XP Pro is exactly the same. The Home and Pro versions have exactly the same degree of stability (way more stable than ME or 98).
The Pro version simply adds some extra capabilities, like the ability to network more than 5 PCs. Don’t need those extra capabilities? Then there’s absolutely, positively no reason to spend the extra money for Pro. Here is Microsoft’s description of the additional features included in the Pro version.
I just don’t understand where this myth started, that there’s something inherently different about the Home and Pro versions. I suspect it just derives from the snob appeal of something being labeled “Pro.”
Have you considered a MAC? I’m NOT a MAC guy but is sounds like it would be a good fit for you. Of course, if you’d rather just replace the OS I’m going to vote for Windows XP Home.
I find the puported ease of use of Linux a little disingenuous. The documentation that comes with Red Hat, for instance, is /terrible/. No boot up disk comes with it, there are seven disks and none of them are obviously labelled ‘this one first’ (not that hard to work out that bit, but the lack of boot disk was a pain) and the community tends to be more than a little snotty to people having problems with the system. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone non-tech - it’s by geeks for geeks and hasn’t hit the required user friendly mark yet for non geekdom.
Personally on the MS side of things I’d recommend Win2K. XP is essentially Win2K with a lot of rubbish added - it has one or two nice things 2K doesn’t have, but nothing that warrents the inflated price and the added annoyances.
A mac does sound like a good idea for you, though - they seem very multimedia friendly and quite easy to deal with if you’re non-tech, but I could be wrong, I don’t know Mac very well. Depends how big a game player you are, really. It’s hard to beat MS OS for game availability, unfortunately.
Your investment in existing software for Windows may keep you in the family, so to speak, but personally, I would recommend a Mac. I use both platforms daily and find my Mac to be easier to troubleshoot and use. The intuitive “feel” of the GUI is much more refined in Mac OS X than in Win XP or 2K. These days, stability is not an issue as they’re all on a level playing field. Since the new Mac OS is based on FreeBSD (I think), you can get as geeky as you wish, but never have to tinker with the innards if you don’t want to. And a lot of the *nix software has found its way over, and continues to do so, through a quick port.
I was considering suggesting the same thing about a Mac. They are very “user friendly,” not prone to viruses and have those fabulous iApps that come built-in. (I love iTunes.)
But, of course, if an OS change that is all is required at this time, let me put in another vote for XP. It’s the only Windows OS I’ve ever tried that was decent.
If you’ve got the budget for new hardware, the Mac OSX operating system is the sweetest thing I’ve used for a long time - I use it on my G4 at work, and it has made me fall back in love with Macs. On my PCs, I use Windows 2000 Professional, and it’s fine - I don’t really know the difference between this and ME, so that might not be the best recommendation. I had XP for a while, but I didn’t get on with it and reverted to 2000.
unfortunitly i don’t have enough money for a new computer. i’ll look into how much xp costs on ebay. thanks guys
MacOS X: So good, even the creator of Java uses it. 
Probably a holdover from the Windows ME/2000 days. ME was a Win95-based OS aimed at home users and 2000 was the NT-based OS aimed at “professional” users. There was a big difference in stability.
I’d also vote for XP. Look into buying an OEM version, it’s identical to the full version (except packaging and printed documentation) but cheaper. It’s only supposed to be sold bundled with a computer, but most shops will let you buy it if you also buy a piece of hardware. You can probably get a new hard drive plus an OEM version of XP for the price of a packaged version of XP.
The only problem with an OEM version of XP (and I learned this first-hand) is that you can’t “transfer” it to a new computer that easily. I had an OEM version of XP Pro for my crappy PC, and I decided to upgrade this PC, big time. I had the shop give me a new case, motherboard, RAM and a bunch of other stuff. I basically kept the processor, hard drive, optical drive and floppy drive, plus a few other bits like power supply.
I wasn’t sure whether I was going to be “allowed” to keep using my copy of XP. The shop had to call Microsoft and get the go-ahead to use it (they had to get a new serial number or something for it or something). The shop was able to convince Microsoft that I was actually “upgrading” my PC (I was) instead of trying to install it on a new PC (which MS won’t allow with OEM). It could have been a big hassle, (thankfully it wasn’t, but it could have!).
Unless you are planning on keeping this PC for a couple of years, I’d get an upgrade. I think that you should qualify for an upgrade, since you are using ME. (You do have a licensed copy of ME, right?) If you think you might be getting a new PC anytime soon, (and you want to port your copy of XP over to it) get an upgrade or a full version. You’ll save money in the long run.
I’ll side with the rest of the geeks. Download RedHat (download the three i-386 files, burn each to a separate CD, and boot from the first one). The installation is as simple as they come and it has a cute graphical interface that should satisfy your every need. Security issues are at a minimum, there’s a wide range of software available, and stability and resource management are dreamy. There’s help available on Usenet and elsewhere.
It’s not that it couldn’t be done, it’s that it’s difficult and pointless. Writing a Windows virus is easy (as these things go) and will affect a huge number of computers worldwide, getting big headlines and satisfying the pathetic need for recognition that drives virus writers. Writing a Linux virus is difficult as there is much better security to get around (and most Linux users are less clueless than most Windows users) and will affect a relatively small number of computers. There’s just no return on the investment.
Noting useful to add (I’d recommend XP Home) but I just wanted to know if the thread title caused anybody else to start free-associating with Huey Lewis’ “I wanna new drug”.
Just a note, there’s plenty of Unix viruses. CERT listed (last year) about the same number for Unix & Windows. Last year’s biggies were Bind & Sendmail holes. Linux is great for the power user but if you want to be compatible with friends & neighbors, play games, etc. then stick with a Windows OS.
And I’m recommending this as a professional UNIX admin - ignore the religious arguments & go for what you can personally manage. Linux may be safer, more powerful, etc. but if you can’t use it well & keep it updated yourself, then it’s less useful & more dangerous than something you can manage.
$.02
I’m also an ME sufferer (though I found it amusing that the authors of the lastest worms thought ME was so crappy they didn’t even bother attacking it), and I’m looking at upgrading to XP soon. My question is this-I have a lot of media files that I don’t want to mess around with backing up. Can XP overwrite ME without affecting data files/software, or do I have to basically scrub the drive and start clean?
Not quite. They exploited a vulnerability that simply didn’t exist in Me. (BTW, despite the fact that it stands for Millenium Edition, the “e” in “Me” is lowercase.) I will, of course, agree with everyone else that Me is a festering pile of dung. It was much worse than Windows 98. Hell, I’d probably rather run Windows 95…
I think the best solution here (assuming you have enough hard drive space) is to have two partitions on your drive. Move all your data off C: and onto D:. When you install XP, just format the C: partition, leaving D: intact. You’re not going to be able to save installed programs (even if you installed them on the D:, because most programs will make Registry entries and the Registry is on C:), although you can save data from them (e.g. your inbox file from Outlook). Programs like Partition Magic will allow you to split your C: into another partition without data loss.
Are you trying to say that thousands of very good free programs don’t exist for Windows? Hell, there is some Windows freeware that I consider better than their commercials counterparts.
I’m going to echo MetalDog and recommend Windows 2000. XP is mostly just Windows 2000 + bloat. And also a Service Pack that takes forever to install compared to the ones on Windows 2000. Oh, and product activation. Gotta love that. :rolleyes: