[CS-FSLUG] OS/2 Anyone?

[Nathan T.]

Vincent Danen wrote:
>
> Is the 64bit version dramatically different from the 32bit version,
> besides being able to access more RAM?  To be honest, I've had not too
> many bad experiences with 64bit Linux, although granted I only really
> use Mandriva so can't speak for the other distros.  A few versions ago
> (so a couple years I guess), the 64bit versions were pretty rough, but
> the last year and a half or so I've not noticed a huge difference
> between the two beyond browser plugin compatibility.
>
Honestly, I have no hard information to turn to when I say that the 64 
bit version of Vista is better. The only think I can go by is my own 
experience. The drivers were all available from manufacturers (except 
Palm), and the majority of the software I used was compatible with the 
64 bit version of Vista. Honestly though, I had a lot fewer inexplicable 
crashes and the computer seemed to run quite a bit faster after I 
switched to the 64 bit version.

I won't lie, for that first year Vista was a real pain in the backside 
and there are still things that bug me. But honestly I can live with it 
and find it more comfortable than Linux. I grew up on Windows after all, 
I got into Linux quite a bit later on and the experience was always 
accompanied by the trouble of hardware that wasn't fully supported and 
the crash report screen in KDE. For those that had the opportunity to 
diversify their experiences earlier on, I can see how they would be like 
a fish in water using Linux. But for myself I've got a good working 
solution to keep my data backed up in Windows, I can keep my computer 
secure despite the fact that I'm running Windows, and every piece of 
hardware I buy off a store shelf will work with Windows. Linux just 
doesn't give me that same sense of stability, half the time I'm not sure 
if the backup tool available in Ubuntu is actually making a proper 
back-up, or when it last made a proper back-up, and I still can't get it 
to work with WPA using a Linksys wireless card.

I guess I should ask myself what exactly I think I'm arguing. I'm not 
saying that Microsoft hasn't shot themselves in the foot with Vista, and 
I can't say whether they are going to even more damage to themselves 
with Windows 7. What I am getting at though, is that a lot of people 
point at the resistance facing Vista and act like Microsoft's house of 
cards is about to collapse in on them; I just don't see it that way, 
eventually people will have to adjust or find themselves a new operating 
system to call home, and things will go back to normal until the next 
time Microsoft tries to release a new operating system.

On a side note: what the majority of the people in this list describe as 
their typical usage of Linux just isn't right for me. I do want to get 
away from the farce that is Microsoft's EULA and this whole notion of 
licensing software, but Linux as a whole just doesn't feel like a stable 
environment to me yet. Ubuntu has come close and that is why I'm running 
it on one of my computers; when I feel confident that my files are safe, 
that my hardware will work without too much effort, that I have the 
software that I need, and that I can carry all that over from one 
release to another without loosing anything then I will be happy. That 
has happened for some people already, but not for me. I still can't get 
Ubuntu to use my NVidia 6200 video card in a dual head configuration, 
and I still can't get Ubuntu to connect to my home wireless network 
using that Linksys card I purchased quite some time ago. I could 
probably get it to work with what some people might call "hacking", but 
while I expect that to be possible in well made software, I also expect 
it not to be necessary.