Why? Honestly RAM is so cheap that I found it a stupid reason not to get 2GB ram. And honestly it has better RAM management than XP, thus it's still better than XP on 2GB. Really, who in the world still uses less than 2GB of RAM today?
And have you ever USED vista before? It's more intutive and friendlier than XP has ever been and would be. Remember the UI was done after feedbacks from countless of people. And honestly if you hate the UI in Vista, you would never want to use Windows 7

^ do you even take Computer Science? from what you posted, you know nothing about good operating system design.

you said it, it's "your preference" and "your preference" is not one of good OS design recommendation. Modern application that doesn't take advantage of the power of modern hardware is a waste of investment. What the use of running Linux-based OS with kernel 2.4 (or older) while you have a Intel CQD/PCI Express 2.0/Firewire 800? An operating system that doesn't utilize hardware resource as often as possible is a waste of your hardware capabilities. You better stick to your 486 CPU then

and you are comparing a full 3D-oriented desktop operating system with simple text-based UNIX shell? are you kidding me? If you want to stick to Linux-based OS, fine with me, not that I can't use it, but I prefer something that takes the power of my PC to the step.

btw, you never realized there are tailored Vista edition that is suitable for business environment - Vista Business Edition, the name suited the purpose

Well said....i can't understand what's the fuzz with Linux...it's crap...after months of Ubuntu, i finally throw it out of my PC...Linux is a fugly waste of time..

For me: MacOSX > VISTA > XP > All the crapp Linux.

Oh yeah, VISTA is great. There i said it.

Excuse me? Do take a look at what Linux and Windows are meant to be used for. No normal end-user is going to use Linux for daily usage. I'm pretty sure they'll grit their teeth and try to b**** the least when using an OS that isn't user-friendly and less GUI intuitive. Linux isn't for everyone. Which is why Windows is still much more popular. And i'm sure a home end-user cannot be bothered to type in terminal commands when there's already an OS out there like Windows that only requires you to CLICK buttons and menus.

As it is, i'm satisfied with my Vista. I can still run programs and applications critics claim that i can't because "it's not supported" or because "Vista sucks". So where the proof that Vista isn't backward compatible AT ALL?

Do note that when it was released, Vista had way less bugs than XP had.

A lot of people forget that XP faced the same issues that Vista is facing now. Only now, Microsoft wised up more and there's less problems.

I didn't say it was point-and-click. But would you recommend it to a home end-user? I certainly wouldn't. Though in the end, Linux may be free, but you're paying for support. You pay tons for Windows, but support is given for free. Either way, it's still pretty much up to you how you want it.

Vista will take  3days at most to be reasonably familiar with if you put your mind to it. I had no trouble transitioning from XP to Vista. Would you like to tell a home user to transition from XP to Linux? They're sure as hell going to tear the hair out of their head after two days and shift back to Windows. Saying that it's complicated is just an excuse not to move out of your comfort zone.

My bad, i meant Linux distro support. Forgot to add that into my post yesterday. Thanks for the correction.

Other than that, going through official channels will usually mean you having to pay for support. Especially if you insist on using open-source. Not many companies have the time to dedicate goggling the internet for open-source solutions and support.

Hell yes i have no idea how HUGE the linux community is and hell yes i don't know anything about what i'm talking about! You happy? Cuz i most certainly am!

But my points still stand.
But if a company WERE to switch to open-source software, tell me, how many of them would actually be able to troubleshoot errors and glitches by themselves? They don't HAVE the time. Which puts more strain on the in-house techies, if they had an in-house tech dept.
Again, Windows-toWindows transition is easy, Windows-to-Linux isn't. Hence my argument that open-source may not be the way to go. And i'm still standing by my point that it's up to you which direction you wish to go. I am not biased towards nor against Linux and Windows.
I don't believe SMEs would be able to just pick up Linux, force their employees to migrate and expect to run it perfectly the first time round. Hence why i said that most companies would be going through a third-party that provides business solutions. They can't do it on their own. The same pain would be less for corporate level companies with a good inhouse tech dept.

Such third-party companies provide consultation services, hardware and software support for the client for a fee. Which is why i said you still end up paying for Linux support.

But would you realistically expect the tech depts to teach the rest of the company how to transition? I think not.

EDIT: I'm giving my case a rest. It's not worth to keep nitpicking at all your points and refute them and vice-versa. I'll keep quiet from now on unless i see something which i can reply to. Wouldn't be nice to turn this into a flamefest would it?

windows and linux feels the same??? i really beg to differ...

to a technical user, yes...

to an average user who ve used windows for the last decade? i really dun think so...

if they really so called feel the same, MS would ve closed shop long ago...

btw, can someone juz close this thread for good? this is getting to nowhere...

zeroglyph:

so aren't the average non IT dept users in a business are also home users??? which OS would they be using at home?? Windows or Linux???

You have never worked on an IT department of a MNC as I do don't you? Linux is vastly different than Windows, if you were to use any of the two main windowing environments (KDE or Gnome). Point-and-click is still the same, what crap is that? And I will bet that the applications used by the hypothetical example of yours (accounting department) will not work in  Linux either. Not to say that administrating a network of Linux computers is harder than Windows computers too. If you think you can just swap a Windows computer to a Red Hat Enterprise Desktop or Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop computer and hope the user did not notice and make a complaint to the IT department, you will be in for a rude awakening.

Lol? Last time some weeboes from another department tried to push linux usage here, and was quickly shot down when it was pointed that the cost to research softwares that are similar to the ones that they used on windows right now and to train the people to learn how to use it is higher than sticking to windows and getting batch license. Honestly, not everyone likes linux. Especially the IT department who would have to handle the complaints if something is not working :3

So you claim to have managed some windows--->linux migrations but did not see the difference between Windows shell and KDE/Gnome? Your credibility is on the line here. What windowing environment did you use when switching those networks? Definitely not KDE or Gnome because those two and Windows Explorer are way too different. You better answer this question, plus I want to know what distro did you use for switching too. Anything apart from RH or SUSE and it will be more expensive than Microsoft Windows.

Oh BTW, did you ever set up a retraining program?

Emulator? Do you mean Wine/CrossOver? Since when that thing works perfectly? No one with sane minds will put their important applications on Wine/CrossOver. Virtualization is another alternative but then you will almost always need to upgrade your hardware if you do this anyway.
I am very familiar with Linux and OpenBSD due to my scope of work, and there is no way that Linux network is easier to administer than Windows network. What Linux lacks that Windows has is integration in management tools. Plus, there are no alternatives for applications such as Active Directory/Exchange/Sharepoint Servers or that migration path from those applications to open-source alternatives is simply too hard or impossible outright.

Again, obviously you never been working IN a real life IT department. Sure we have linux expert here, and like asellus, I have to familiarize myself with some distros (RedHat, then OpenBSD for our servers, ubuntu for our unix lab, etc). But linux experts are linux experts. The averange joe that works at the counter making stuff done is not. Heck, the more he don't know about how his windows works, teh more he is scared to learn to use linux. Not to mention the fact that I said earlier, not all softwares and shit can be used in a unix based enviroment. Wine is just a way to make SOME windows software works. But it's not a solution. so don't think I don't understand about how well an open source OS fare in real life Malaysian working environment.

Nautilus and Konqueror are nowhere near the same as Windows Explorer, and BTW I am talking KDE/Gnome as a whole windowing system when compared to the Windows Explorer (which is also the name of Windows' shell), not only the file manager. They are not the same. Expecting someone who only knows Windows to be able to use KDE/Gnome seamlessly without retraining is simply lying. They do not look the same, they do not work the same, retraining is needed if the user is not computer-savvy.

First thing first, when switching Windows to Linux, no one sane will use any distro apart from RH Desktop and Suse Linux. You use Ubuntu? That will be expensive than Microsoft Windows. The cost will be free, but the support system cost will be high. If you think you can just switch to non-RHED/SuSe distro and it will take care by itself, you are sorely mistaken.

Now tell me what distro did you use when switching a Windows network to  Linux one, what windowing environment did you use for that distro and whether you are crazy enough to use Wine/CrossOver in that (you did not address this issue). You say that you do not use 'windowing enviroment' in the distro that you used for switching. So, everyone is now working from the CLI then?

About which network is easier to maintain (Windows and Linux) it seems that you are the one that did not know anything. Of course what you can do in Windows network, you can do too in Linux. It is only that the tools in Linux are not as intergrated as the ones you can use with Windows. What makes you think I do not know Linux (CentOS is my preferred distro) and OpenBSD? I'm in this industry for nearly a decade already, I largely know what happens in the industry, and yeah, The Year Of Linux® has not come yet.

In a corporate environment that is originally Windows, switching to Vista is better than the alternative that is Linux. That's a fact. Cost of the license is just one small part of the story. Retraining them if you switch them to Linux while keeping productivity at normal is the one that really kills Linux.

"most non-IT dept personnel won't notice the difference"

srry, but i lol-ed at this...

first response is probably, " Why doesn't the Windows button work?"

second response is, "Where is My Computer??"

third will probably be, "U means there's no Program Files?"

zeroglyph; maybe I didn't work long enough for a lot of company;

but majority runs windows rather than linux; even in Shell IT, a big company; they are using Vista and they skipped XP.. so I don't see where linux suddenly appear from; maybe you work a lot with oversea pros but seriously I rarely see people using linux..

Majority in Malaysia are windows; that is something I couldn't agree more @@

So, you did admit that Windows and Linux structures are different. So who is the one again that claim that Windows and Linux are the same point-and-click?-dear god, i was referring to the interface level. the gui, got it? your arrogance level is so unbelievable that you can't understand that?.

Allow me to refresh your mind:-
Emphasis mine. So why again you claim point-and-click in Windows and Linux is the same? After all, the structures is different.

I keep mentioning Linux support because support outsourced to Red Hat/Novell is cheaper than having it in-house. There are many ROI reports about this out there that proves this. If you do not use Red Hate/Novell services, staying with Windows will be cheaper than switching to Linux, and that's true 98% of the time, especially when the deployment size is bigger. Plus, you did use paid version of Wine (is that CrossOver?? - because Wine is free of charge)

KDE/Gnome are windowing environment, just like Windows Explorer (the shell, not only the file manager) did. So you did use KDE, which is nearer to Windows Explorer experience than Gnome.

There are not much difference between Centos, RHEL and Fedora, surely you should know that Linux 'expert'. -i was being bloody sacrcastic (even that is beyond your understanding?), fedora and centOS are based on RH, in fact, they are the free RH left.  But there are considerable differences between Ubuntu and Suse Linux. Apparently you do not have experience using both for you to say that. -Suse and Ubuntu are debian-based, they have the same structure, if you've developed something using these 2, you would know. .And Red Hat Enterprise Desktop/Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop are the best distro for Linux workstations in a corporate environment, not Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Debian etc. And I am always talking about Linux workstations, not servers. No one sane will use any distro other than RHED/SLED for deployment in a corporate environment. -says who? you? i'm suppose to believe that? using enterprise linux in a workstation is like using windows "server" for normal usage.that is sane to you?

Tell me again, what distro did you use for your deployment? I am going to rip you apart if you use any distro apart from Red Hat/Suse Linux because your argument about cost will fall apart with usage any other distros. The fact that you seems to use customized KDE to look like Windows Explorer and have to pay for Wine (gosh, it is free as in beer for god sake) -wineX is not free shows me that the cost of switching to Linux your way will be higher than switching to Vista. fact: In-house support system is expensive than outsourcing to a Red Hat reseller.

If you are refering to interface level, then I am even more right. KDE/Gnome are different at interface level compared to Windows Explorer. Pretending that they are the same is simply lying and demeaning to KDE at least which is superior to Windows Explorer in many way (if you can excuse some decision made toward KDE4).
Considering your past replies, I am just taking pre-cautions, which I will eventually be proven right below.
Bzztt... Suse Linux is not exactly Debian-based. It has Slackware roots and are more similar to Red Hat than it is to Debian. One of them is LSB-compliant while another is not (make your own homework which one is which), so your claim that they have the same structure is incorrect. Binaries that work in one distro may not work in another (need recompile/reconfig).yes, reading from wiki is so much easier, huh? suse is more similar to RH? check the location of suse's config files location and the structure, i see no similarities to RH, only to ubuntu & debian(LSB aside at this point). i got blind-sided when i 1st developed on a SuSe platform, thinking it was similar to RH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux...ns#Debian-based - Suse Linux is conspicuously missing.
Red Hat Enterprise Desktop/Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop, contrary to what you think, are geared for CORPORATE WORKSTATIONS. Microsoft even supported the latter. Emphasis is mine of course. No idiots out there will use any distros apart from those 2 if cost-savings + world-class support are aims to be achieved. An example: IBM resellers/consultants in Malaysia like Sapura deployed only one of these two distro for a reason I will outline below. glad i don't work for sapura then.
And it happens to add more to the cost, and make Linux less cost-effective than you have said in this thread before. Plus in the US, running important accounting software on unvalidated platform like Wine may be against some accounting rules (glad Malaysia does not have it right?) like Sarbanes-Oxley. the cost is not that much of a problem, it's not like i have to install wineX into 400 machines
You still haven't mentioned the distro that you use. I understand your reluctance of doing so because if your claim of having deployed Windows---> Linux replacement migrations, you would have known that the federal government mandates that only LSB-compliant distros may be used in any procurement of Linux (kinda like the POSIX compatibility requirement that USA government mandates), not to mention that you need to use Intel/AMD validated platforms (can only be obtained from major resellers like Dell, Lenovo - two examples that comes to mind in Malaysia), which I suspect you did not do if you ever done migrations for governments agencies. err....this is a public forum. i'm not obligated to reveal too much company stuff, man. only a newbie would fall for this bait.but rest assured we've studied all this before deployment(well not me of course, i'm the engineer, not the lawyer.

Why so secretive about the distro you use?