These types of linux fans need to stop.

By this I mean those Linux fans who say "hurr durr upgrade to linux windows xp isnt secure"
Windows xp is secure most people make viruses for newer windows versions anyway and tk anyine sayibng just get a windows xp theme no. That does not solve anything by downgradjng to linux youll lose a lot of software support youll lose a bunch of functionality and youll have a much more nonuser friendly OS, themss just change how it look and how come theres not a single one that has the correct start button?

 

Agreed. Linux is very cumbersome to use also.

 

No its extremely easy to use command lines every time you want to do something. lol on some linux OS's its hard to figure out changing the wallpaper honestly linux is useless it and has 2.11% of the market share and WINDOWS 8 has 1.86% of the market share when it already ended support and windows 8.1 has been out for 3 years. And "its good for developers" is not good reason because windows is also very good for developers and you already have tons of software out there while linux has way less. Im convinced people only use it because its not popular.

 

Bump.

I had this experience recently so I bumped this. Someone kept persisting that I "Upgrade" to a Linux Distro because they fell for the whole "XP isnt secure" mumbo jumbo scam Microsoft is spewing out because they want us to purchase 8/8.1/10. XP Is fine. Many antivirus and malware companies still support it. A few browsers still support it. Even those browsers that are "Out of date" still are protected in a sense by the working antivirus on your computer.

These Linux users who say this also try to say we can use Wine to get our programs working. No. Just... no.
I tried Wine on Linux. Only a small handful of programs worked and many of my essentials did not. Plus, it was horrible and clunky to use and I cannot STAND the fact it kept forcing me to use a keyring to install apps. Its *me* locally installing apps. Why do I need a password every single time? Plus, installing apps from discs or download is such a pain in the ***. You need to actually be fluent in Linux platform crap to do it. Otherwise, installing from the built in store on the distro is basically a must.

They try to say XP and vista users should hop over, but thats like trying to make someone fly a plane who only knows how to ride a bike. Linux is clunky, cumbersome, difficult and has a high learning curve. I don't and never would recommend any linux product to anyone. Id rather recommend Windows 1.0. At least that is easy to use.

 

Pick the best tool for the job.

I use both.

Would not wish to do otherwise.

It aint a competitive spectator sport. No one is going to gain from cheering on your preferred 'team', nor from deprecating the other.

 

I use an old version of ubuntu (11.xx) "for the same reason I use XP"
My issue is with ALL of 'em changing the gui's so drastically.
7 is close but 8, &, (gag->), 10, & all linux distros, , , , They could have newer os's with some 'classic', replaceable, gui. (XP did that)

(example) How is (ubuntu) moving the 'close-minimize-full screen' boxes from right side to left any real improvement?? Like switching the gas & brake pedals on new cars??

I have no problems with change for the better, change for the sake of change is just wrong.

old dog, no new tricks here, , ,

(I have copied & pasted various 'sudo' command line commands etc, could be simplified but linux os targets geeks, , , , ,

 

Although primarily a ('Puppy') Linux user, I gotta agree with everyone here. The best thing to do is to use what you're comfortable with. As Priscus says, run both and you get the best of both worlds.

I run Puppy entirely in RAM as a 'frugal' install, and I run XP & 7 in VirtualBox.

Nobody's got the right to get up in your face and insist you 'must' switch to a different OS.....especially an alien one. The only reason I switched to Linux when XP went EOL was because I fancied a change; after 13 yrs of XP I was getting a wee bit fed-up with it. And it's not the first time I've changed OSs, anyway. Since starting out with these boxes of black magic in the late 1970's, I must have tried just about every OS going at one point or another, even FreeBSD. I'm not so 'wedded' to any one set way of doing things that I'm not prepared to consider alternatives. With the sole exception, perhaps, of Gentoo..... (I'm not that much of a masochist!)

But I've never actually completely ditched XP.....and have recently started running 7 alongside it as a VM. It was the first OS that I stuck with for any real length of time.....and for certain things, it still 'works' for me.

I may occasionally 'suggest' folks give Linux a try.....but I don't insist. I don't have that right. And anyway, I don't view myself as a 'fan'; merely a 'user'.....who will run whatever works for him to get the job done, as easily as possible.

None of us needs to justify our personal choices to anyone. It's all about choice, when it boils down to it.


Mike.

 

I fell for this linux is faster than Windows spiel and once installed ubuntu onto my XP desktop. It was the complete opposite the thing was running like it was wading in treacle. I initially thought it was some setting I had got wrong and it wasnt until I upgraded my computer to a faster one that I realised Linux was now running at an acceptable speed. Windows XP was lighter and faster on the old processor. The experience certainly dented my faith in all the propaganda in the linux magazines .