Thinking about going back to windows...

Been having some silly issues(which is fine) and getting older Im realizing that I am getting tired of having to do loads more work to use the same software. Plus for those software I cannot get work under linux I have to use a VM which on a SL9400 isnt fun.

Maybe I just need to vent or step back and take a break, but Im starting to seriously consider only using linux for servers...Scary

 

My vote is for using Windows as a second OS in dual boot.
This is how I'm working with Adobe products. There are no Linux competitors for Photoshop, Premiere, After Effect etc. and running Windows in VM is not an option for me - no hardware acceleration

 

Dual boot is not really an option I plan to use ever again. Its 1 host and VMs or bust. I dont game much if at all, but it would be nice to load a few older games (none of them work under wine or playonlinux). The biggest concern is alot of the work I do is split between working better on linux and working better on windows(or not on linux at all). I love linux but Im starting get tired fo all the work to get a system up to par (probably why I never picked up arch). I guess maybe its due to getting older and wanting stuff to work easier and the fact that time is at an all time high premium so I just need quick turnaround on new software and setups.

I guess Ill ride it out a bit longer and see if its just a phase as I love my debian squeeze install (minus no pandora anymore, etc)...

 

Well, you could always run Linux as a VM on Windows and get your jollies that way.

 

Thats what I would most likely do if I went back. To be honest if I had a higher resolution screen I would have probably switched by now. But the cube turns my 1440x900 screen into one useful desktop environment.

 

I do not see using Windows as being evil or anything. No reason to be apologetic if you want to go back. I like Linux because it is lighter and runs faster. Am giving Windows 8 a try, and now all of a sudden, Windows seems lighter and runs as fast. Maybe, I will go back to Windows 8 when 8 comes out.

Still prefer the Gnome 3 DE though, so will probably stick with Ubuntu.

 

If you go back to Windows perhaps we'll get an 'I miss linux' thread sometime?? TBH I find it difficult to live without both nowadays. I've suddenly found myself without a Windows box and am missing it!

As a compromise how about an easier to use flavour. Debian isn't the easiest.

 

Use what is useful. That is, why personally, I've never moved to linux. But to each it's own. There's nothing useful in any form of wars or something.

The setup that serves you best is the setup that you should chose. In the end, nothing else matters.

And besides, nowadays, all os are simple to use, stable, and quite save. And all of them are only one thing: An application host. Decide based on your applications and on which platform they work best.

In my case, that's windows. A friends needs are served by Linux. Another one needs osx.

 

It just depends, linux is very good for browser based people who do not do much but go on facebook etc. Windows has alot of more options and is the breadbasket so to speak of the OS world. Windows can also be very fast if you have the stuff. But a little tweaking and you should be fine as long as your cpu is okay and you have a decent amount of ram. If not i would say buy some ram and eventually upgrade the rig to a more powerful one. Its not as expensive as you would imagine a decent laptop can run for $6-700 thats not bad. Or you can build a desktop. I bought a very powerful laptop for on the go needs, and built a beast of a desktop for under 1100 including a 32inch 1080p screen. So think about indeed windows is worth it. Im not saying linux wouldnt benefit from this, but windows is the central idea most of the time when it comes to people who want very fast and features

 

It might be the wrong time to move back to windows. Windows 8 just seems like a horrible idea for a number of reasons (interface, app store, no dual boot options). I keep a win7 partition alive on my primary laptop but I think this will be the last windows install for me.

 

I don't want to start an argument, but this is so wrong.

 

I disagree. Im using linux for everything from coding to browsing and much much more. The reason I want to go to windows is because I had a bad day and I had a kernel related issue at a bad time.

To put it bluntly Im sticking with linux.

I agree and thank you.

If I do go back to windows I would only use windows 7 on my laptop. Now as far as tablets go Im SERIOUSLY thinking about the possibility of a windows 8 tablet.

I agree 100% I cant live without windows and I definitely cannot live without linux. I rely on both for too many things. As for difficulty of linux that never bothered me really and I do think debian is pretty easy to pick up and use, but its no ubuntu for simplicity. Honestly Im going to stick with debian at least until I can afford a 1080p screened laptop as thats the only way I can be productive without the cube.

As for the thread, well honestly Id probably post I miss linux while Im formatting my laptop

 

I am running Windows 8 DP now, and it is really nice. Never mind the Metro UI, it boots faster and seems to use less memory. In any event, this install will be wiped shortly and this machine will be running Linux again.

 

Windows is much nicer in dealing with hardware(except for ancient ones) thus I use it as the hosting OS and run linux under VM. As I don't find the desktop under linux to be better than windows anyway so linux under VM with putty into it fits my need

 

except that what you state as reasons is not true.

 

Oh yes it is:

mjg59 | UEFI secure booting (part 2)

 

This is closed to FUD. No one knows the detail yet.

 

the only thing tying me back to Windows is Microsoft Office. Wine just doesn't work 100% all the time....

so I got a Windows VPS on a remote host for me to log-in to.... solves my problem...

not sure if you can do this with your problem, or whether it's cost effective (I'm paying ~$15/month for a 1GB windows VPS which is enough for what I need to do)

 

sounds a bit expensive, what is the advantage over Windows under VM ?

 

i have used linux only for a short time because linux doesn't have softwares like photoshop and so.. but have to agree linux booting is much faster than windows

 

Did you read it?

Microsoft done said they are going UEFI with keys. How can that be "FUD"?

 

then why can i dualboot easily, and actually can boot from a bios and not from efi even? exactly: because it's OPTIONAL.
it's a feature to use if you want security. one that will be used by corporations, and it'll make sense there.

but it's optional, like any security feature.

 

YOU can boot however you want because YOU own a system and are beta testing! WHEN windows 8 comes out you will have UEFI built into the BIOS from the OEM and this will no longer be possible!

So, now it no don't matter. HP,Sony,Acer.... WILL be including this because MS wants them to. And well all know what large company has this kind of pull.

So beta tests aside...

 

DID YOU READ IT or understand what it means ? The reason behind this move is to make sure the whole booting path is not tampered. Since the boot ROM/firmware cannot be tampered, it has to start from there. Now how does it make sure the next one is not ? simple, signed binary.

So the boot ROM must have a list of trusted CA(just like your browser). Microsoft just happened to be the first one. There is no technically reason for ASUS to not include RedHat, Debian, Apple etc.

How it will be implemented in detail ? Unknown.

 

We are going to see UEFI built in on Windows 8 computers. MS will require it. I do not think any hardware manufacturer will include keys for all the distro's (and that will be the end of build your own). Hopefully an option is given to disable this setting in the bios.

Ironically, that will make Windows more secure in at least one respect.

 

I don't think Microsoft would be stupid enough to draw Antitrust lawsuit again.
They don't need to be 100% own the market. linux + apple would be confined to less than 10%(or likely 5) no matter what.

Either the vendor would have keys for some other third parties or has the dual boot at the UEFI/BIOS level.

 

At this point in the thread it seems important to add this quote:

Source: mjg59: UEFI secure booting

 

Yes I did and do understand. Long story short?

I have to trust M$ is going to release these keys in order for me to install some other OS.

If anyone thinks for one moment that M$ is going to release these keys to be fair is sadly mistaken! I just read an article where M$ said Linux is no longer a threat (can't find the article).

It's all over the net, Google it. Lot's of people are talking about how UEFI will not let you boot another OS. It may be able to be reverse engineered of course, but this may be in your EULA that if you tamper with the boot loader, you give up the rite to use that copy of Windows.

If that sounds far fetched to you, I don't know what to say! You seem to come off as this somehow protects you?! When big daddy is the operator I don't feel that way!

EDIT: Found article.

 

sigh, you need to learn how the business world work. It is in Microsoft's interest to make sure other OS are bootable, just like Intel has to keep AMD alive.

It is perfectly ok for Apple machine to only boot their OS, it can destroy Microsoft or cost them in the B range of legal trouble. Do you think Microsoft is stupid enough for that extra 5% less market share in return ?

Hate to say it, your found link is even more FUD.

 

No.

1. No Linux distro's would have to sign their bootloaders and kernels.
2. Hardware manufacturers would have to have their BIOS recognize the keys.
3. Or, the hardware manufacturer can have an option to turn UEFI off.

 

I hope this is the way it turns out! Let's not forget, the OEMs are just puppets and most can care less about me and you.

1% market share (+/-) may not be enough motivation to make an OEM listen. Of course antitrust lawsuits may.

 

If OEM has a choice, they would not as it means more cost to them on a cut throat business. It would not surprise me that Microsoft would pay them to make sure it happens.

 

I guess if MS themselves say something, it must be undoubtedly be "FUD".

Issue:

M$ does not make Bios, generally this falls down on OEM to order special BIOS for special purpose. OEM in turn orders BIOS that will let you boot windows 8 and nothing else. This get repeated down the line. So all of your mass OEMs are releasing this BIOS that only lets you boot windows 8.

Guess what? MS is not guilty of antitrust because they did not force the hand of the OEM. What they did do is release a restricted product and know that this result will be the most likely outcome.

99% (+/-) of windows users don't care about Linux. Us 1% are not going to be able to sue many OEMs over this and may not be considered antitrust since "everyone" is doing it. A judge would have to agree with 1% (+/-) of the population when 99% (+/-) of the population don't care.

MS walks away free while OEMs have the battle (if at all). The Apple argument you throw up is only fuel in the fire. OEMs can simply come back with "Apple is doing it" and make it a harder case.

Let's also not pretend that Intel wants AMD to survive! All manufactures of a product want to corner said market. Without competition, innovation can slow and thus cost less money. There is no way for Intel to kill AMD! They can't compete in price and haven't been able to for a very long time if ever.

If all manufactures of goods where as you say, we would have honest business instead of patent trolls! This is another topic however.

We have got way off topic. I'm done with this.

 

It is not about good or bad but simply $$$.

These monsters need to cover all grounds in their business decision. Having all the alternative dies down is bad as you become the lighting rod.

Microsoft prop up Apple when it is on the brink of collapse. Not because it see it as a good investment(it later sold it at a pretty low price), nor because that tiny little Mac Office market meant anything to it, nor that Bill and Steve are very close friends. So why do you think Microsoft pump money into Apple ?

And no, in an antitrust case, if you are the lawyer of Microsoft, you would have already cost them Bs. Antitrust law is not that simple. A Grove once said that they need to have special training to their staffs dealing with say motherboard makers how to say something, in order to not stepping on that issue.

 

Microsoft to invest $150 million in Apple - CNET News

That would suggest patent protection. Which they all do and it makes sense. Little company is down, kick it with money and some protection. WIn win!

 

This thread is getting awfully flammable.

On the last points, let's remember that this is supposedly an optional feature in UEFI implementations. On the Google Chromebook, it's an option in the setup menu. Just as one example.

If a motherboard comes without support for disabling secure boot, it's either aimed at a very targeted market (corporate or rentals, etc.) or a mistake on the part of the marketing department. Nobody is going to recommend a board that is tied down like that.

 

noop. those patent suit can go on for years without hurt either side. It is not as if Apple was holding an upper hand in these cases(or else it would not be investment but plain right settlement fee), these companies always like to sue each other.

 

That was my initial comment, the conspiracy theory is closed to FUD.

 

it's like that trusted computing chip. we use it at our company, but no one is forced to use it on their home system.

 

Yes, this is just FUD!

While the whole world is worried about it, this forum seems to have a grasp on whats happening. The world must just be full of it and we should just trust our daddy and our rootkit OEMs.

On another note, I have been working on computers since the days of DOS. I have seen all kinds of malware/virus problems with windows. One thing I have never seen is anything take over a boot loader (of course bad sectors and currupt loaders asside). What I have seen is things like GRUB and other loaders be loaded to the MBR, user choice malware perhaps?.

So in short, MS is fixing a problem that don't exist except MAYBE in the most extreme cases? Throw around the word "FUD" if you want to, but a problem always deserves a fix. This is not a problem and IE9 is more of a security risk then I have ever seen in an MBR,

My FUD link to Linux no longer being a threat, coupled with the "conspiracy FUD" that everyone must get MBR malware and we have a bunch of people who must just have issues with daddy.

We will see ye... Thou shalt trust thy daddy I guess because I cannot find one reason why I should trust MS given the track record they are accountable for.

Of course the samsung tabs and BETA devices will have a way to turn it off and on (it has to be bootable on current machines to be beta tested).

 

it exists in the company world. it's nice to have devices that can only be started up in 100% defined ways. a security requirement that could not have been satisfied so far, and is a good one.

it's more about stealing data there, and other hackings, not generic malware.

 

A bios trojan is found in the wild- The Inquirer

 

Intel may soon lose some market share because windows8 supposedly is being developed to run on ARM also.

 

The author gives 2 examples of this since 1999! 2, out of all the computers in the world, 2! So this is not a huge security threat. I still have never seen it and have worked on computers for years.

Yet, here, here, here we can see what windows security is really like.

So assuming the author of the original article is correct, the chances of being compromised by a MBR attack are slim at best when compared to the other issues.

Why ignore this? Why is MS turning a blind eye to this fact? Linux no longer a threat all the sudden why? UEFI takes care of one small problem and one large problem, Linux gets downgraded in threat and 2 MBR codes get stopped.

Figure it out....

 

I am not sure why you are so hostile against Microsoft and treat every move it made as 'conspiracy'.

Microsoft mentioned that Linux on desktop is no longer a threat, not because it has killed it but because it never materialized.

Microsoft doesn't need this UEFI to change anything. Apple and Linux will be forever confined to less than 5%, as far as total shipment is concerned. IOW, taking over that 5% would mean 5/95 => 1/19 => 6% more revenue of its existing pie which is already mature segment(very low growth). So what is the incentive to do all these in exchange for these unwanted hostility, possible scrutiny from DoA and EU ?

It makes NO BUSINESS SENSE and Microsoft is not run by person like Steve Jobs (or to a lesser extend Larry Ellison) who would do thing just for the sake of doing it, being the king for example.

They are run by effectively some bureaucrat equivalent and bean counters plus a large term of legal professionals.

You may say they are solving problem that is not a real threat(which I personally do not agree) but there is no need to put that conspiracy glass.

 

Just read about past business ventures with MS and you will understand my lack of trust. Could it just be conspiracy theory? Who knows.

Linux has not made it because MS threatened to yank licencing from companies that might want to sell Linux. That is not pro competition, that is a big company throwing weight around.

Just because I might be a user does not mean I have to have trust! MS is what they are today from making crooked deals and not caring about you or me. MS don't know how to co-exist in the business world and Apple/Linux has always been a threat. As soon as you say that something is not a threat it can become a bigger threat then you can imagine because you drop you guard at that point and become vulnerable.

Everything they are doing makes no sense! Doing this I assure you is not for security but more about OS lock in. I see no place where this move makes complete sense. They are not protecting the normal user from anything but themselves. And that presents another problem because when you protect someone from something its hard to have a clear mind about freedoms at the same time.

Less then ethical business practices is what makes me question. Sure in the real world this would make business sense when used for the right reasons.

I hope MS proves me wrong but I don't think they will!

 

well if you must read it that way without any things to substantiate, I believe we have to agree to disagree here and close the discussion.

 

sigh, we can just agree to disagree. I can't do all your research anyway have kids and stuff.

 

do all my research ? Hate to say it but that is kind of insulting me, really have to stop here.

 

Not meant as an insult and sorry if it came across that way.

But really, if you don't understand how MS got where they are today by crooked politics, then I can't really link it all to you.

In a nutshell, they have stole most of everything at the start and are less then stellar when it comes to anything else. Look at all the FUD they went on about for years threatening Linux and users over patents. Never did they say what these were, but they threw weight around and scared some companies into signing agreements (Suse comes to mind).

There is no comparing honest business practices with MS. No matter how you try and twist it, at the end of the day they ARE Microsoft and they have a track record and have earned the way I feel.

If you want something to substantiate, search Google for all the wrong they have done. They are a horrible company and thanks to them, nothing gets a real chance to try and be on top. So we are stuck with windows. And I don't have to like that or agree falsely that Microsoft is just an honest company and out to make mine and your computer experience much more enjoyable, this is not the case.

Bill Gates is a decent man (he gives lots of money), but as a company he is as crooked as they come!