Windows vs. Ubuntu/Linux

[Viper]

Hi guys

I have always been a (pretty satisfied) Windows user, and I am very happy with my Windows 7. But for some time now, I have been wondering whether switching to Ubuntu/Linux would be a good move.

The problems is, I don't know much about computers. Like most average people, I am quite familiar with Windows, but that's about it when it comes to OS's. All I know about Ubuntu/Linux is that it is free, some people who use it are extremely praising about it, and it is not compatible with some software.

But for one thing, I don't even really know what Ubuntu/Linux is, what the relation is between Ubuntu and Linux and which of those is the actual operating system.
I have been searching the web a bit for information on this, but haven't found anything that really answered my questions.

So I was wondering if there are people here who have experience with Ubuntu/Linux, who could give me some adequate information about it, and of course, their own opinion about why they prefer one OS over the other.
Also, I would appreciate it if I could get a simple list with the pro's and con's of Ubuntu/Linux.

Thanks in advance for any info!


~ Viper.

[Maarschalk]

What I know about Linux is that it is an open source operating system, more open then Windows on PCs.
Meaning it is ideal for people wanting to make their own programs and run their own programs in this environment called Linux.....Unbuntu I do not know anything about!....

[mikeuk]

Had a go once with Linux Mint you don`t have to unistall Windows you can boot from CD or USB and have a play with it.

Linux Mint

[Edited on 11-14-2011 by mikeuk]

[Maarschalk]

Cool, thanks for sharing Mikeuk!....

[Viper]

I have meanwhile learned a thing or two. There are several operating systems that are all Linux-based. Ubuntu is one of them, and so is Mint (and Mac OS for that matter). I have looked a little deeper into Ubuntu and read reviews and comparisons with other OS's like Windows, and it looks to be a pretty awesome program. In many tests it performs equal to Windows, if not better.

The best thing I like about Ubuntu is the fact that it is 100% open-source, and of course I don't mind the fact that it's completely free of charge either (all GNU license). But the most intriguing thing about it is the fact that a group of people put so much time and effort in designing something like that, just because they believe everyone should have the right to the use of a computer (and therefor a OS). Personally I find there is something honorable in that, and in my book that fact alone justifies the effort of at least trying it out. Because just like mikeuk mentioned about Mint, you can download Ubuntu and try it on without having to format your hard drives and do stuff you might regret.

I have also read that Ubuntu is not as popular as Windows (yet), which explains the lack of feedback to my questions in the first post. I am still very curious to read some user experiences from anyone who can give some, so if you have any experience with a Linux OS, please do share!


~ Viper.

[Edited on 11-15-2011 by Viper]

[Maarschalk]

Great to know, I'll try it out some time!.....Geeeeez, so many operating systems makes it confusing.
So if you by a PC without an Operating System that costs $100-$400 how would you go about obtaining the free Unbuntu and installing it? I guess trying it out is also a good excersize to familiarize your self with the navigation on a Mac/Aplle....been a long time since I have been on one, but I still eat one once in a while!........:P:P:P:P:P

[Edited on 11-15-2011 by Maarschalk]

[Viper]

So if you by a PC without an Operating System that costs $100-$400 how would you go about obtaining the free Unbuntu and installing it?

Well that's would work the same way as when you were to buy your new computer as separate components, put it together yourself and then install Windows, or when you would want to make a clean reinstall of Windows as part of maintenance on your system (something everyone should do regularly, it really helps your computer's performance).

As mentioned, you can download Ubuntu for free. It comes as a .rar file which has an executable (.exe) file in it (this is the trial version) and an .iso file. An .iso file is a CD/DVD 'image' file and in Ubuntu's case, it holds the installation program for the actual Ubuntu operating system, the 'full' version if you will.

You can burn the .iso file to a CD or DVD with any burn program. There are many good free ones like imgburn for example.

When you have the file on a CD/DVD, simply keep the disk in the drive, and reboot your computer. As soon as your computer is in the BIOS, hit the appropriate F key to change the first bootable device to your disk drive. Then your computer will reboot again, this time from your CD/DVD drive.
Granted, going into the BIOS can seem a bit unsettling if you are not familiar with it. In this case it's best to ask someone else to do it for you.

After this you will be taken into the installation process of Ubuntu, and the rest is easy.

Important note:
When installing a (new) operating system, you will be given the option to re-partition (partitioning = assigning the C:/, D:/ etc areas and their sizes) your drives, either partially or completely. Doing a complete repartition is always the better option and will make your computer run smoother as its starts with a completely clean slate.
BUT a full repartition will also completely erase everything on your drives. So always make sure you have made backups of whatever programs and documents you want to keep.
Personally I keep all my stuff, both documents and installation files of the programs I use, on an external drive (which you have to disconnect when reinstalling an OS or it will probably go tits up). I even used to use an FTP server to keep all the really important stuff on. I learned this when I dropped my external drive once and I still lost everything I 'backed up', lol.
You can also use a usb stick for backup purposes, although it can't hold as much data as an external.

Just NEVER back things up to the same drive you are going to install the new OS on, or you WILL loose it.

That's basically it:- burn the .iso to a disk, reboot the computer from that disk and finish the installation process.
There are other ways to go about it, but those are more advanced.

I strongly suggest you try the 'trial' version first though. This way you can familiarize yourself with the OS without having to repartition your drives and running the risk of loosing stuff unintended.


~ Viper.

[Edited on 11-15-2011 by Viper]

[Viper]

If anyone was thinking of trying Ubuntu, here's how I experienced it. I hope it can be helpful.

My computer was due for big maintenance, which includes reinstalling the OS. Because my computer came with Windows already installed I only had a recovery disk. And because I couldn't afford to buy a full Windows Cd, I decided to take my chances and download and install Ubuntu instead of Windows. I did a full install, which erases everything on your drives.

The installation process went fine, but then the problems stared. When the installation process was finished, it told me to reboot the computer so I did, but it got stock somewhere in a DOS window. Several attempts did not give any improvements, so in the end I was forced to run the computer from the disk drive so I could at least get access to the internet for help.
That is where I hit the second problem. The only obvious place you can turn to for help is 'Ask Ubuntu'. On this site Ubuntu staff gives answers to your problems alongside regular (countless) community members. This sounds like a good source for help, but in reality it creates a lot of obscurity in determining which of the answers you receive is the one that will work for you.
I struggled to find the right solution to my reboot problem, but in the end found it.

So I finally had Ubuntu running. I have to admit that it looks really nice, boots extremely fast and is really responsive. The GNOME interface does need some getting used to, but it quite intuitive.
Then I hit the next snag. I found out that Ubuntu does not let you change anything in what Windows users know as 'program files'. In Ubuntu it is called the 'root', if I remember correctly. Even if you are the main user with administrative permissions, which I was, you cannot make any changes. This caused for me not being able to put back any of the backups I made before the installation. The graphical program I use, which (contrary to most other programs) does run on Ubuntu, was turned virtually unusable due to this.

The same goes for any other Windows programs I used. Almost none of them runs on Ubuntu, since Ubuntu is a Linux based OS which is very different than Windows.
It has to be said that for every program I used to use on windows, you can get substitutes for Ubuntu on the net. I have not bothered to check all of them out, but they say that these programs work just as fine as those on Windows. There is also a program you can download and install on Ubuntu which allows you to run Windows programs on a Linux system, called 'Wine'. But it looks and works extremely primitively, using a Windows 98-looking shell, and as far as I could see it didn't even work. Granted, I didn't give it the time to really find out about it, but at that time I was too annoyed about the setbacks to really bother with it.

In the end I decided that it was clear that Ubuntu does not work for me, and for the purposes I use my computer for. I saw no other option than to look for a Windows 7 copy, and eventually found one. So I am back running Windows 7 Ultimate, and boy does it feel trusted and runs great!


So after being away for a while enjoying my little Linux/Ubuntu experience, I am back. As soon as I figure out how to retrieve my lost EM account data, I'll join you guys in game again and dust off my Evoch-E which has been sitting in the hangar for way too long.
I have sent Vice an email, hoping he can help me out with the account.

See you all soon!


~ Viper.

[Maarschalk]

Thanks for the very usefull info Viper, and welcome back. Hope to see you out there some time.
I will not be trying unbuntu after reading your endeavor, I simply do not have the time....:P

I just went to an Mac/Apple store at a mall to try out the new Macs operating system, I did like the looks of it but did not like how it works. It was very confusing to me the navigation part and trying to close programs. It seems when you acces a program it closes automatically when you open another one...anyway I guess I am more used to windows!....:P

[Edited on 12-11-2011 by Maarschalk]

[Marvin]

Viper, I seldom read long posts but, this being the last thread with a lit "new post" light, I read it all ... and was, myself, enlightened. Thanks for the info.

[Malix]

Long time linux-user here, throwing my 2 cents into the pile

The installation process went fine, but then the problems stared. When the installation process was finished, it told me to reboot the computer so I did, but it got stock somewhere in a DOS window.

*commandline. DOS is an operating system, not a common name for everything commandline. Yes, I am nitpicking!

Then I hit the next snag. I found out that Ubuntu does not let you change anything in what Windows users know as 'program files'. In Ubuntu it is called the 'root', if I remember correctly. Even if you are the main user with administrative permissions, which I was, you cannot make any changes. This caused for me not being able to put back any of the backups I made before the installation.

Sounds like a misconception here. I'm actually quite puzzled why would you put your windows-stuff backups to root partition? All userdata should reside under /home/yourusername or ~ for short. Root, or /, is meant for system files only, and yes you can change it, you just need to be root (*nix for Administrator). In Ubuntu "there is no root-user", in a sense that you can't log in as one, but you can become run stuff as root-user via sudo or its graphical equivalent. It's basically the same as UAC in windows.
TL;DR: You can, but you shouldn't, its like messing with c:\\windows\\ basically. (/etc/ doesn't count).

And if you mean you can't change where programs and whatnot install, thats not entirely true. if you install software from ubuntu repositories, stuff goes into predetermined locations. Exactly like if you installed stuff from windowsupdate. This is to ease the automated updates. You can, however have apps where ever you like, even under ~ if you so wish. If you do, then you're manually updating it.

edit: this explains a bit how the directory structure in unix/linux is supposed to make sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem ... _structure

There is also a program you can download and install on Ubuntu which allows you to run Windows programs on a Linux system, called 'Wine'. But it looks and works extremely primitively, using a Windows 98-looking shell, and as far as I could see it didn't even work. Granted, I didn't give it the time to really find out about it, but at that time I was too annoyed about the setbacks to really bother with it.

Wine isn't the magic bullet to every issue. At times it can be aggravating, but generally does it's job just fine. I know a guy who's playing Skyrim on wine, on linux, so it can run pretty much everything (with exceptions), but sometimes it needs tuning and settings and metric ton of coffee (for the user) (substitute with beer if that helps you solve problems).

Also, why is wine a bit edgy to use? Afaik: win32 api is so poorly documented that it is ridiculously hard to make a system that offers it to applications. it requires immense amounts of detective work and guessing. (I believe wine-devs said this somewhere).

In the end I decided that it was clear that Ubuntu does not work for me, and for the purposes I use my computer for. I saw no other option than to look for a Windows 7 copy, and eventually found one. So I am back running Windows 7 Ultimate, and boy does it feel trusted and runs great!

This. No point in sticking with using it if it doesn't feel like home.

For my own experiences then:
I started my linux usage with debian, in the era where RAM was still measured in amounts less than a gigabyte. I mainly used it as my web-server and irc, which id did great. It took me several years to actually use desktop-linux, which I started by adopting kubuntu, which is a variant of ubuntu, different desktop environment (kde, a bit more Windows-ish) but same otherwise. (K/X/*)ubuntu linux's are great for beginners, but man oh man, when they have issues you're in the deep end of the pool. The community is "newbie-ish" in general, so they might dish out "help" thats not really helpful at all (though this applies to userbase of windows too). The forums seem to be rather horror.
The version upgrades of ubuntu (every 6 months) were a pain to perform, and every second time my whole system seemed to break. Major bummer.

Currently I'm dualbooting between win7 and arch linux (I get to chooce which OS I want during booting). Win7 is for gaming only, and for everything else I have Arch Linux. Arch is probably best described as linux for powerusers. It is complicated (as compared to ubuntu) to set up, as after installation you only have minimal commandline and thats it, you then install everything you want from the repositories. It sounds like really complicated stuff, but its really not (if you have even some knowledge of linux).
So whats the difference between Arch and Ubuntu? I mean, besides the minimal approach by arch in the beginning? Arch is rolling release, meaning it doesn't have any annual release (like, ubuntu 11.06, 11 = 2011, and 06 = june). In ubuntu they stick with certain versions of all software, and only apply security & stability upgrades, when the new release is out, they create a new set of software versions and stick to those. In arch, there are no version sets and everything updates on their own pace. Yes, there might be some issues when a major package goes through a major-version update, but thats really, really rare.

I generally prefer my arch/kde desktop over win7 because I can tweak it completely to my liking, starting from every keyboard shortcut to tiny intricacies of the window manager. But all the games just work better on windows, so its a nescessary evil

Bottom line: If you want the computer to work as you prefer & want to be in complete control, linux is a good choice (just not ubuntu or gnome desktop), but if you just want to browse the web (kitten pics!) and play evochron, stick with windows.

EDIT: why can't I ever be happy with a post without editing it. grrr.

[Edited on 12-12-2011 by Malix]

[Edited on 12-12-2011 by Malix]

[Maarschalk]

LOL..Malix...thanks for more insight and info!.....:P

[Viper]

Yup thanks for the feedback. I could be wrong on several points there, but like I mentioned got annoyed when the installation process did not go as I expected (and as it should have). When I install a piece of software like that, I expect it to work. I don't want to make all sorts of difficult twists and turns in order to make it work. I don't have the time for it, nor do I have the patience. I have my computer to use it for my purposes, not to play around with it.

That said, it's good to see that you seem to be a satisfied Linux user. Goes to show that opinions can differ.


~ Viper.

[Marvin]

When I install a piece of software like that, I expect it to work. I don't want to make all sorts of difficult twists and turns in order to make it work.

You would've loved Bill Gates and his 640k memory limit ... getting around it with himem definitions and writing your own autoexec.bat files.

[Malix]

When I install a piece of software like that, I expect it to work. I don't want to make all sorts of difficult twists and turns in order to make it work.

You would've loved Bill Gates and his 640k memory limit ... getting around it with himem definitions and writing your own autoexec.bat files.

I tinkered with the dos config/startup files quite a bit in the day, made even a nifty boot menu where I could select from multiple configurations. It must have taken ages

I spent waaayy too much time tinkering with the memory settings and mapping monochrome memory segments etc just to get some legacy dos games and tracker apps to work

Those were the days.

...this got sidetracked fast from the original topic!

[Viper]

Malix, I owe you an apology I guess. I have to admit I didn't read your full reply to my Ubuntu experience. I don't mind reading long replies at all, but at the time of reading I had some other stuff to do.
I have to say I recognize a lot of what you wrote from what I saw from Ubuntu, especially the (lack of) professional online support.
Even though I am back to Windows 7 for the time being, I do find it interesting to read what you wrote about other Linux based OS's. Granted, I hadn't looked into other Linux OS's before I went with Ubuntu, not at all actually. I guess I knew the name from somewhere and naively figured it was the best one out there, which after reading your reply, it obviously is not.

I am starting my own online business in graphic design. I'm working on the preparations now but due to a lack of time it will probably only be running in the first half of 2012. Money allowing, I will probably purchase a new computer dedicated to heavy graphics work. I am still very curious as to whether or not Windows would be the best OS to use for such a computer, or whether there could be other and better options, like the Linux OS you mentioned. Seeing the lack of professional support in this, I would enjoy some insights about this from you, since you obviously have better knowledge and experience on the matter than me or anyone I know.

EDIT:
And I have seen previews of Windows 8 and to tell you the truth, I hate it already lol.

EDIT: why can't I ever be happy with a post without editing it. grrr.

I hear you there, lol!
EDIT: see?


~ Viper.

[Edited on 12-13-2011 by Viper]

[Maarschalk]

Previews of Windows 8? I do not understand how they come up with the names for Windows operating systems!
LOL first Windows 1.1 then Windows 3.1 then they jump to Windows 95 they skip a few years and we have Windows 98 skip a few more years and we have Windows Mileneum, Windows 2000 then suddenly they stir away from the year thing and we have Windows XP, Windows Vista, and then they jump back to the year thing with Windows 7 in the year 2007. Now it is going to be 2012 soon I would think they would Have called it Windows 12 in stead of 8!....:P:P:P:P:P:P

[Malix]

Malix, I owe you an apology I guess. I have to admit I didn't read your full reply to my Ubuntu experience.

No biggie, it was a "wall of text"

I am starting my own online business in graphic design. I'm working on the preparations now but due to a lack of time it will probably only be running in the first half of 2012. Money allowing, I will probably purchase a new computer dedicated to heavy graphics work. I am still very curious as to whether or not Windows would be the best OS to use for such a computer, or whether there could be other and better options, like the Linux OS you mentioned. Seeing the lack of professional support in this, I would enjoy some insights about this from you, since you obviously have better knowledge and experience on the matter than me or anyone I know.

I'd say don't go with linux for graphic design. Granted there are some pretty nice graphics apps for linux.. buuuuut to be honest they're no match for professional tools like photoshop.

I'll take the opportunity to shed some thoughts about some image editing software available on linux:

• Gimp - Don't get me wrong, Gimp for example is powerfull image editing tool but it has its shortcomings, most notable being the UI. It's HORRIBLE to put it nicely. There are some projects to make it mimic photoshop but I've never managed to get those to work.
• Inkscape - Vector awesomeness to the max.. if you take the time to learn all the keyboard shortcuts (which are plenty). This app, like gimp, suffers of horribafucus userinterfacemus. Doesn't seem to remember dialog positions between sessions and above all, feels a bit volatile. Few times it has just crashed and I've lost an hours work. If you use it like you play old Sierra adventure games, ie: save often, you don't have much of an issue. To be fair, haven't used it in about a year so it might have gotten a bit better

...aaand thats about all the editors I've used, sure there are many, many more but I'm a programmer, not an artist

So realisitically speaking, I'd say you're better off in commercial world of operating systems, be that windows or osx, when it comes to graphical design etc. Atleast all the pros I know favor Osx + photoshop, I have no idea why it would be better than win+psd. Maybe its just the aesthetics of the hardware, dunno.

Also, for graphics design I'd assume you'll going to need more than 1 monitor. Depending on hardware you choose, mainly graphics card, you'll be facing the issue of configuration. nVidia seems to perform the best on linux and multimonitor setup is not an issue, no idea about ati. On intel I've had some battles with configuring, I ended up making scripts which force monitor positions and resolutions on each login, not a pretty solution but it works.

(I seem to be bashing linux alot... )

And the other linux distributions? Weell... LIST TIME!

• Debian - One of the oldest distributions. Conservative but stable. Basically everything debian does is time tested to work, but as a tradeoff you'll be missing all the latest things. Good for production servers etc, on desktop.. eh, hard to say. This is basically the father of Ubuntu (*buntu is a derivative of debian).
• Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc *buntu - Novice friendly as long as anything doesn't break. Bundles alot of stuff, most of which is irrelevant (imo) or pointless, but has pretty much everything you'd need for basic usage OOTB.
  Differences between *buntu's are basically the desktop environment.
  Ubuntu has gnome/unity/whatever, not my favorite as it (atleast used) not to offer much in terms of customization.
  Kubuntu has KDE, which I favor from the bunch as it allows the most customization. It's the most windows-like too.
  Xubuntu is geared towards lower end spectrum of computers, has xfce desktop.
  K and X buntus are in a "little brother" -zone compared to Ubuntu, meaning that all new releases come to them with ~months delay.
  Because of its debian roots, all updates circulate through debian maintainers to ubuntu, though they break from the time tested and stable stuff with some apps like browsers etc.
• *Buntu derivates - I shudder to the thought. Of all the distributions, why would you create a derivate of _*BUNTU_ when it is already a derivate, pointless and scary imo. (There may be a yo dawg joke somewhere in there about derivatives)
• Suse - Pretty good afaik, geared towards business use afaik (though free home version exists, but lags behind), I just have personal hatred against the package manager
• Fedora - same thoughts as for Suse.
• Gentoo - I dare not thread in this distro, waaayy beyond my level of knowledge. It's basically the guru edition of linux distributions. You compile *EVERYTHING* from sourcecode. Takes time, needs expertice, needs godlike understanding. Basically minimalistic on top of which you build everything you consider needing. I assume the community has strong expertice on everything computer related, but is scarce (afaik).
• Arch - This is where my heart is at <3, using this at home and at work. In a sense like Gentoo, OOTB very minimalistic and bare & you install everything you consider you'd need, but you don't compile anything, everything comes pre-compiled (ie, binary), but requires some knowledge. I wouldn't recommend starting linux-using with this (unless you're brave) as you'll probably fall in despair at some points, though their wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org is ridiculously good, the beginner's guide is thorough and easy to understand and follow (its basically step-by-step guide from downloading all the way to running graphical desktop). The forums are mostly friendly, helpfull and know their stuff.
  Also, updates to software come to Arch with great speed, everything is by default the latest stable releases from their maintainers (applies to Gentoo too, afaik)

because I'm a controlfreak I'm using arch w/ kde and have mapped a lot of my own keyb-shortcuts & tweaks.

so to summary & raise few more points:
Some distributions lean to ease of use, which tends to mean a lot of automation which in terms leads to more points of possible failures. Where as some distributions give you just commandline and assume you'll know your way from there.
Don't get me wrong, *buntu is pretty solid alternative for those who just want virust/malware carefree computer & surf the internets and look for pictures of kittens. Advanced or experienced users should look elsewhere (this is where I advocate for Arch Linux, again ).
Personally I'd say linux is good if you want to... I smell a list coming!

• do software development (lot of libraries and dev-tools readily available, and free, too)
• surf the web etc "basic" computer usage
• feel like elitist because you're using something 95% of internet populus don't have a clue how to operate.

*phew*, that was a lot... tl;dr much?

(as per usual, I'll probably come back and edit because I remember something worthwhile few minutes after I click on "Post")

EDIT: I KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS.

[Edited on 12-14-2011 by Malix]

[Edited on 12-14-2011 by Malix]

[Edited on 12-14-2011 by Malix]

^ see this? I'm annoyed that I can't get a decent post on the first try. ever.

[Edited on 12-14-2011 by Malix]

[Viper]

@Maarschalk: LMAO. You said it mate, I don't get it either. And don't be surprised if they give 'Windows 8' yet another name shortly before releasing it. Especially seeing the fact that it's more tablet-oriented than any other Windows version before.


Malix:
Thank you for your most insightful reply. You provided a lot of info for me and answered a lot of the questions I had.

But before going into anything you've said, I'd like to say something about your leading statement:

I'd say don't go with linux for graphic design. Granted there are some pretty nice graphics apps for linux.. buuuuut to be honest they're no match for professional tools like photoshop.

I have to disagree with you here. I have been doing graphics for quite some years now, albeit mostly as a hobby. I have used both Photoshop and GIMP, and have spent countless hours (years) with each program.
Around about 2 years ago though, I switched from Photoshop to GIMP and never looked back. And after 2 years of working intensively with GIMP, I have to say that for me personally, it beats the shyte out of PS. Besides the fact that in my experience it outperforms PS in many ways, there are many other reasons why I prefer GIMP (which I will not go into right now, that would be something for another conversation). There are many many others like me. And in professional reviews, GIMP and Photoshop tend to score evenly, with quite often even a small advantage for GIMP.

That said, I wonder if your advise regarding my initial question (quoted below) would change, assuming that GIMP is at least as good as PS, seeing that you stated it is not:

I will probably purchase a new computer dedicated to heavy graphics work. I am still very curious as to whether or not Windows would be the best OS to use for such a computer, or whether there could be other and better options, like the Linux OS you mentioned.

And just for decoration: you mentioned you weren't very fond of the GIMP GUI. Take a look at the way I set it up, see if that changes your mind a bit:



Thanks for taking the time to write such an elaborate reply!


~ Viper.

[Edited on 12-14-2011 by Viper]

[Maarschalk]

Your GIMP GUI looks cool!......

[Malix]

Malix:
Thank you for your most insightful reply. You provided a lot of info for me and answered a lot of the questions I had.

You're welcome!

I have to disagree with you here. I have been doing graphics for quite some years now, albeit mostly as a hobby. I have used both Photoshop and GIMP, and have spent countless hours (years) with each program.
Around about 2 years ago though, I switched from Photoshop to GIMP and never looked back. And after 2 years of working intensively with GIMP, I have to say that for me personally, it beats the shyte out of PS. Besides the fact that in my experience it outperforms PS in many ways, there are many other reasons why I prefer GIMP (which I will not go into right now, that would be something for another conversation). There are many many others like me. And in professional reviews, GIMP and Photoshop tend to score evenly, with quite often even a small advantage for GIMP.

That said, I wonder if your advise regarding my initial question (quoted below) would change, assuming that GIMP is at least as good as PS, seeing that you stated it is not:

I will probably purchase a new computer dedicated to heavy graphics work. I am still very curious as to whether or not Windows would be the best OS to use for such a computer, or whether there could be other and better options, like the Linux OS you mentioned.

And just for decoration: you mentioned you weren't very fond of the GIMP GUI. Take a look at the way I set it up, see if that changes your mind a bit:
*screenshot*

Well, if you feel at home with Gimp, then I'd say you're either a masochist, mad or both. </humor>

While I don't quite see anything special about your gimp ui, its still gimp and I'm not a fan. But hey, if it suits you thats all that matters

Gimp is gimp no matter what platform you run it on, BUT, Linux's could provide some extra goodness to gimp in form of better window management, for example atleast in kwin (default window manager for kde) you can change opacity, grouping, alway on top / bottom, go fullscreen, and specific window/app rules for and window/app.

so you might consider these features as a step up from what you can get in Windows (I know I do). Quick screengrab from my desktop.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7484348/gimp_and_kwin.png
EDIT: the pic was rather huge, it "broke" the forum layout a bit, so changed to link

So, it pretty much boils down to your needs, if you mainly use gimp and don't require any specific windows only applications, you could just as well go with linux as pretty much any window manager offers better options than Windows does.
(Atleast I'm not aware if I could freely configure per window/application rules in Windows.)
Otherwise I'd recommend keeping with the trusty old windows

PS. Yes, the UI widgets (buttons, menus etc) look like crap in the screenshot, for some reason gimp doesn't want to follow my system theme and I have no idea why. Firefox and all other Gtk-apps are themed just fine. Weird but I don't really care as I don't really gimp that much. (Yes, it is a verb now)

[Edited on 12-15-2011 by Malix]

[Viper]

While I don't quite see anything special about your gimp ui, its still gimp and I'm not a fan. But hey, if it suits you thats all that matters

Gimp is gimp no matter what platform you run it on, BUT, Linux's could provide some extra goodness to gimp in form of better window management, for example atleast in kwin (default window manager for kde) you can change opacity, grouping, alway on top / bottom, go fullscreen, and specific window/app rules for and window/app.

so you might consider these features as a step up from what you can get in Windows (I know I do).

Those features look nice (especially the document tabs on top) and some of them could be handy, but then again most of them if not all, can be managed in a similar way in Windows. And even it they can't, these few Linux perks which do not really involve the actual functionality of the GIMP itself, would not be worth switching to a Linux system for me. Certainly not if you take into account that with the Gimp Theme manager program which you can download separately gives you the ability to assign any theme to GIMP, and make custom ones if you want. I haven't been able to get Theme manager to work on Linux by the way, although I'm sure there are ways around it. I just can't be bothered with them; I'm a practical user and want things to work without having to do too much extra stuff.
There's nothing special about my GUI by the way, I'm just using another theme for it. It's just that you mentioned that you don't like the basic GIMP GUI, which I agree with because admit it, the standard GIMP theme looks crap (I wish they'd address that for once). You can make it a whole lot more pleasing to the eyes as I did though. Frankly I don't see why you prefer the PS UI over the GIMP one so much, because having worked with both of them I can say that they are pretty pretty similar.
But like you said, it's a matter of taste and what you expect from a program that determines whether or not it will suit your needs. Personally, PS does not work for me.

So, it pretty much boils down to your needs, if you mainly use gimp and don't require any specific windows only applications, you could just as well go with linux as pretty much any window manager offers better options than Windows does.
(Atleast I'm not aware if I could freely configure per window/application rules in Windows.)
Otherwise I'd recommend keeping with the trusty old windows

In that case I think I'll stick with Windows and tuck my Windows 7 installation disk away somewhere very save, seeing that I don't think I'm gonna use Windows 8 as things look now.
I do use my computer for other things like playing Evochron, so using your explanation Windows would be better for me. And even if I would start using a dedicated graphics computer, I have to say that the 'unknown' of the Linux world scares me a little bit. I have not found Ubuntu to be as easy-going as Windows, and judging by what you wrote, a certain level of knowledge (and patience, which I do not have a lot of when it comes to computers) is required to operate a Linux based system efficiently. And when I purchase a computer that will be used for professional purposes (ie. I have to make my money with) I don't think I'm going to spend the time to learn about how to deal with Linux.

PS. Yes, the UI widgets (buttons, menus etc) look like crap in the screenshot, for some reason gimp doesn't want to follow my system theme and I have no idea why. Firefox and all other Gtk-apps are themed just fine. Weird but I don't really care as I don't really gimp that much. (Yes, it is a verb now)

Hmm, I can't help you with that. I thought that any Gtk program automatically assumes the system theme. As to why GIMP is not doing that on your computer, I have absolutely no clue. However you could probably add other theme files manually into the appropriate GIMP folder and rename it as 'default' or something along those lines. Would at least get rid of that ugly as hell standard theme lol.


Finally, thanks again for your feedback. Although you provided a lot of helpful information, I don't see any major advantages over Windows that would make me switch to Linux for professional purposes. Or it would have to be from a moral point of view as in wanting to promote the open-source spirit of such programs. But seeing all the disadvantages for me personally, from a logical business point of view that does not make a lot of sense.

Windows it is methinks.


~ Viper.

[Edited on 12-15-2011 by Viper]

[Malix]

PS. Yes, the UI widgets (buttons, menus etc) look like crap in the screenshot, for some reason gimp doesn't want to follow my system theme and I have no idea why. Firefox and all other Gtk-apps are themed just fine. Weird but I don't really care as I don't really gimp that much. (Yes, it is a verb now)

Hmm, I can't help you with that. I thought that any Gtk program automatically assumes the system theme. Why GIMP is not doing that on your computer, I have absolutely no clue. However you could probably add other theme files manually into the appropriate GIMP folder and rename it as 'default' or something along those lines. Would at least get rid of that ugly as hell standard theme lol.

Finally, thanks again for your feedback. Although you provided a lot of helpful information, I don't see any major advantages over Windows that would make me switch to Linux for professional purposes. Or it would have to be from a moral point of you as in wanting to promote the open-source spirit of such programs, but seeing all the disadvantages for me personally, from a logical business point of view that does not make a lot of sense.

Windows it is methinks.

~ Viper.

Well, Gtk software usually inherits the theme when running gnome, I'm a kde user. Though I have set up the relevant qt-to-gtk and vice versa thingies but no effect on gimp. Couldn't care less

And you're welcome. Didn't mean to scare you with the linux talk tho, but considering it all, Windows probably suits you best.

Oh, considering EM and linux.. I've had zero luck of getting it to work on wine. Major bummer