What is the best Desktop Linux 64 Bit in your opinion in term of user friendly? Please give your reason.

The Distribution must be at least as user friendly as Vista (which is not so user friendly )

Uh

Why are you opening a thread here when you can discuss about it over at the Linux and OSS Section.

Anyway , I would say ubuntu 64-bit would do the trick. Its not that bad , plus you could do lots of desktop customization and pretty much GNOME does a good job. If you want to have Windows like GUI I would suggest you to use KDE !

Thanks for your comment bro. I open it because it just want to be specific with this question and this question only.

As for KDE, I find that its quite a bit different form windows (KDE 4). As for Ubuntu 8.10, I don't seems to find it user friendly enough. Especially for a total stranger to Linux like most of the people.

Actually I want Linux distribution that is simple so that even my dad know who handle it. Heard PCLinuxOS is user friendly but it got no 64 bit version. Any thought?

hmm.... I sure that just recompile kernel with 64 bit support will do the trick

Are you sure its that simple?

Anyway, which one do you think is the best that suit my requirement in this thread?

what about Linux Mint?

What do you like about it and what do you think special about it? Would love to hear you personal opinion. Thanks.

im not really into linux and i just use it for >2 hrs. What i like abt it coz its very very user friendly. all the codecs are installed and you also can play music with only just hover your mouse to the file. for the GUI i think its okay

just my opinion

I also heard that it has one of the easiest GUI. Still waiting for the latest 64 bit version though coz the recently released was 32 bit version.

How about hardware compatibility? Any thought?

I'd definitely recommend Ubuntu 8.04. As far user-friendliness, go for Mac OS X (which I'm currently using ).

Anyone have any thought?

well, for the one who basically grow up with windows, ubuntu maybe is not user friendly. but for my dad, who never touch a computer before, the ubuntu is good for him. btw, why you need a 64 bit OS? 32 bit is good enough actually, and it can run perfectly on 64 bit processor

This post has been edited by xordMeztGeR: Jan 1 2009, 02:41 PM

OpenSuse & Mandriva are the only distros that worked well for me in 64bit. All others had more limitations & stuff missing.
If you insist on 64bit, you WILL have to live with some limitations. How much depends on what you need.

Good question. Its because I want to use all of my 4GB RAM and in turn would make it easier for me to run virtual machine and install Windows in it. In short I want to move to Linux but that Linux must be Windows Like so that the learning curve is not that high. I will only use Windows when its absolutely necessary.

---

Added on January 1, 2009, 9:13 pmI believe Mandriva is not 64 bit. But is it easy to use?

As for OpenSUSE, I believe I have briefly tried the latest one but it can't seem to detect my Broadcom wireless but Ubuntu can do it with no issue. Its just Ubuntu is a bit hard to use for me.

This post has been edited by Spade: Jan 1 2009, 09:13 PM

*but that Linux must be Windows Like*
I have to comment on this point.
Linux != Windows. The reason it's good is because it's different from Windows.

Almost every linux distro has got both 32bit & 64bit editions.
There are 64bit versions of Ubuntu, Mandriva & OpenSUSE. They are usually labeled like i386 and x86_64.
Have you tried out the latest OpenSUSE 11.1, it's a pretty good release.

Mandriva is pretty good as a general purpose desktop. I find it friendlier than Ubuntu, but you have to decide what suits you.

Many thanks for your input bro.

I think I need to clear some things up to avoid confusion. What I meant it that sentence is that the GUI is Windows-Like. So that you will feel more at home. I have tried a few of the well-known 64 bit Desktop Linux but have yet to found the one that I like. I don't mine even if I have to pay for it as long as its easy to use. All I want is an alternative to MS Windows. Even after I have found a suitable and easy to use desktop Linux, I will still use my Windows albeit in a form of virtual machine running on a Linux system.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have briefly tried openSUSE 11.1 and it looks very good. But the main let down is that it can't detect my Broadcom WiFi thus I will need to be some kind of geek to make it run which not what I wanted since I don't have time to waste.

This post has been edited by Spade: Jan 2 2009, 12:07 AM

I understand. There are several distros that try to look like Windows, such as Xandros & Linspire. But the similarity is superficial & often leads to more confusion once u delve in a little deeper, because no matter how Windows like they try to make it on the surface, the underlying structure is still completely different. That's why I can't recommend them. But if u wanna try them out, then by all means.

In the current state of affairs, it's not possible to completely avoid the geeky stuff if you intend to use Linux. At some point or other, you will need to learn it.
I recommend you try out as many distros as possible before u settle on a choice. As least you should try all the other big ones like:
Fedora
Mandriva
Mepis
Mint
Kubuntu - Since u didn't like gnome. Maybe u'll like the KDE version.

I just don't like the command prompt thingy when all you need is just to install a software. Any idea in the least use of command prompt version? Actually at first I will not spend that much time on Linux since I intend to run Windows on a virtual Machine (Virtual Box or something) for Linux. So my first target it to get a Linux that can be easily setup to work with my computer. Once it done I can slowly climb the learning curve.

what do your dad use comp for? maybe a full featured linux is not that suitable if he just used for web browsing and type letters.

He use it for any other normal Windows use their comp. I don't mind if a Linux distribution have a full feature as long as its basic/normal features (that most of Windows users want) are user-friendly enough.

This post has been edited by Spade: Jan 2 2009, 10:49 AM

You don't find that something like Ubuntu covers most of what an average user would need? Web browser, office suite, and some knick knacks?

User-friendly, no? DIfferent from Windows, but no more so than MacOS.

Ubuntu 8.10 did not detect my sound and with Ubuntu can't really surfing the net properly out-of-the-box since it wont allow layman to install plugins required when you surf to the site like lowyat.net and all other since they strictly allow 100% free software.

Since you can't detect the sound,SOLVE IT.

I do think you install linux to learn linux.So,it's great chance to learn linux.

You can't just switch to other distro,because your sound is not working,network is not working etc without making attempt to solve them in your present distro.

Ubuntu,Mint,and PC Linux OS is considered very user-friendly distro.If you really want Windows-like GUI,go for Windows.

And,what's your definition of USER-FRIENDLY?Slackware is user-friendly distro to me.

Sorry to hear that.

I was actually impressed with how everything worked OOTB for me. My WiFi, Nvidia card, sound (mine is onboard tho), it even identified my monitor which Windows always listed as a generic PnP. Everything worked on first boot. Same thing with my Toshiba laptop, all my components work: Wifi, bluetooth, video. I still am amazed at the level of hardware support.

What plug-ins? Like Flash Player? Why not? I got mine installed and I have to be very honest and say I know nothing about Linux. If you're any more layman than me, you'll have to dig a hole to see the sky.

You running from Live CD or an install?

I'm downloading other distros like Mandriva, Fedora and OpenSuse to test but I'm happy enough with Ubuntu now.

Yea, Ubuntu can detect my desktop hardware.
Haven tried on my laptop.

Of course I will run my Windows Vista Ultimate on Linux using the Virtual Box.

Some Linux fail to detect my Broadcom Wireless (only the broadcom) while others fail to my sound (only sound). So far I haven't found one that can detect both Broadcom wireless AND sound.

As for learning. Yes I do want to learn but I want to first setup the Linux machine up and running and install my Vista on it using Virtual Box so that I can use it for my daily routine and do my work. After my basic necessity has been fulfiled ONLY THEN I will slowly learn the Linux and eventually will STOP using Vista at some point (I hope).

You can suggest me any Linux even the commercial one coz I don't mind paying. All I want is just an alternative to MS Operating System.

---

Added on January 2, 2009, 8:59 pmYeah, my desktop running fine too but my notebooks isn't. The thing is I want to get rid of my desktop and just start using notebook 100%. That is why now I have 2 notebook where one is exclusively for torrent + encoding job.

This post has been edited by Spade: Jan 2 2009, 09:00 PM

i think what you asking is ridiculous. you cannot expect everything work on free OS. and there's a way to make it work, just you have to google for it. and that's the first step to learn to use linux.

You can go to distrowatch.com to see distributions you want.You can also go to http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/li...5/?daysprune=30 to seek any recommendation for the type of distro you want.

First,what sound card you have?
What type of chipset is your Broadcom?I'm not too familiar with wireless thingy.I leave it to other forummer.
For Linux,you will really have to be very CAREFUL when you purchase your hardware,or laptop because some of them just incompatible with Unix/Linux system.

Some problems are related to kernel,not necessarily the distros.

BTW,Isn't setting up a perfect running Linux system is a part of learning linux?

If you still want recommendations,you can try Linspire/Freespire or Xandros.

If you really want to learn linux/Unix the hard way,Debian,Slackware,*Solaris and *BSDs may be suitable for you.

As far as I know those 3 Linux distribution hasn't been updated to new Kernel for years. New Kernel usually means better hardware support especially a new hardware.

As for learning yes, setting up a perfect running Linux is part of the learning but it should be simple. At least as simple as setting up a Windows.

I personally think that 64 bit in linux is not stable (actually it is not stable, but troublesome) especially when dealing with the library.
You have to re-link certain application's library otherwise, it will not function properly.

I use Fedora core 8 64 bit for my thinkpad x61, quite lag especially when you are copying file.
Then, I download the 32 bit version of the same distro, and it work perfectly.

Sorry,I didn't really take a lot of attention on the 3 distros above.

Simple or hard is quite a relative term.One can say using Ubuntu is hard and using BSD is easy.

For now,I'm using Slackware 12.0,not the newest slackware but when I first installed it,it's really quite a plain distro.Even the KDE wallpaper is the default KDE 3.5 wallpaper.

Setting up sound should be quite easy,alsaconf will usually do the trick.Next,I have to setup the sensors.I installed lm_sensors,modprobe some modules and my sensors is working.

Third,I have to setup nvidia drivers,my keyboard drivers etc.I usually set all these in about an hour.

Yes,it would be quite hard but you don't have to do it often.

If you still want more distros choice,how about Zenwalk?It's quite fast as someone said,and if you like Gnome then I think you would like it.

Here's my question to you;

1.What hardware are you using?
2.What is your preferred choice of desktop enviroment?KDE,GNOME etc
3.How deep you want to know about linux?
4.Do you want to have everything automatically done for you,or you want to have more control of your OS?

If you can answer questions 2,3 and 4,then we should can recommend a right distro for you.

All of the software and libraries have 32bit or 64bit versions. Recompiling a kernel won't fix it. Might actually break a lot if you have no 64 bit libraries around to help support your changes.

---

Added on January 5, 2009, 8:30 amI have been playing around with opensuse 10.3 64bit. I don't know if it is the most user friendly (probably ubuntu is a better bet for that). I have noticed some of the software that comes with opensuse doesn't work as it was distributed, occasionally its hard to add software, java plugin for web was not set up to work properly in the distro. Otherwise it has been pretty stable and fast.

This post has been edited by nlinley: Jan 5 2009, 08:30 AM

Out of curiosity, what would the advantages be for running 64-bit over 32-bit at the desktop level currently?

don't expect to get gui as friendly as windows. This will never happen in linux. At least not in short term.

I suggest you just install one distro that is easy to use such as ubuntu or opensuse then let him try. If he doesn't like it then move back to windows.

IMHO, linux is still not mature enough to be used as desktop for common people. It still need a bit of technical aptitude to use linux as desktop. Those who are inept will definitely be stuck not knowing what to do.

As for 64bit vs 32bit, I would say go for 64bit. Linux's 64bit platform is already very stable. They were out way long before windows 64bit.

Its because the one that you tried is 100% OSS version. You should try the one with proprietary software then you can do many thing like play movies, mp3 and surfing internet with java function and other plugins. But still, my quest is to find the most user friendly Linux.

User-friendly as in use or in set-up? Sounds like your gripes mainly centre on zeroconf hardware support.

With Linux, I think it's reasonable to expect some issues to arise that requires some fingerwork on the users part.

Ubuntu, for example, installs and runs flawlessly on my system. Everything works but it's the only distro that does that for my computer. Fedora. Mandriva, and openSUSE all had issues on mine.

But I was curious about the others, so I tried openSUSE anyway.

With openSUSE, I had to run through hoops. The LiveCD sends my LCD out of frequency because X selects an incompatible driver for my video card so I only have a blank screen. I had to find out how to boot at Init level 3 to reconfigure X to to use the right drivers. Had to do this since even failsafe wouldn't work. No choice since I didn't know terminal commands and didn't want to install something that wouldn't even let be fire up a GUI.

Installed it and then it gave me a GruB error 17, which I learned was an unrecognised file system for the partition, and refused to boot into either Linux or my Windows (alarm bells). So I had to hunt down how to reinstall Grub (didn't work), reconfigure Grub (didn't work), reorder my partitions (didn't work), and reset the partition type (type). No luck, so I had to move Grub onto the /root on my USB. At least I got Windows back.

Once I got that working, it then conspired to not boot into openSUSE from my external drive. More hunting taught me that USB booting isn't the simple process that I thought it would be and, after much pain and suffering, I only discovered that my motherboard isn't USB-boot friendly as it wouldn't recognise boot files on anything USB, not even if it was a Windows rescue disk. I need to either have Grub on hd0 (can't because of error 17) or a /boot partition on a local drive, but if that's the case I might as well have the whole installation internal.

So now I'm in the process of migrating files out of one of my storage partitions to convert into the new home for openSUSE.

Everything could work out of the box, but chances are some things won't. But whatever it is, the answer is out there

Any other suggestion gentlemen?

Spade Bro !

Nice to see you here !!

Linux is almost limitless in features and functionality !!

But your mentality and approach limit yourself to the unlimited world of linux.

Until you open up, you will appreciate it's openness

Change is Pain, and I am sure that you would feel uneasy at the beginning.

For sure there are problems in every software and OS, but for linux, once you understand the way, solving those problems are a lot easier then for XP/Vista by M$crosoft

You can basically get the software to do what you need to be done, for FREE ......most of the time !

You have a better and secure environment, compare to M$ that is more prone to virus attack & security problems if you are doing online transaction often.

For an easy setup, I also recommend ubuntu or PClinuxOS.

Like in your case for your Broadcom wifi card in ubuntu, what you probably need to do is to install a driver, and that it's !

Learning curve that is for sure, but open up and look forward, you will discover the beauty

I have never turn back for 5 years now ............and I truly enjoy it

Have fun !!

Read here http://lateral.netmanagers.com.ar/stories/BBS45.html

hehee.. mac user to promote os x in linux thread?

well, to me, i fall in with suse, to be precise, opensuse
doin' installation & update much easier compared to any others distro
it almost like windows, alot repository available to update patches

Now waiting for Linux Mint 7 64Bit edition.

if you can't find one with no hardware problem at all, take one with least problem and start asking uncle google for howtos. broadcom's b43 hardwares used to be hell to setup. they are pretty much hassle free these days.

if your hardware is rather new, you might want to try debian unstable branch. at least until you've come to the point of having everything working. then you can freeze it until it goes to testing.

it would help if you know your hardware. lspci, lsusb would be your friend.

ive been thinking to turn to linux from windows. but i have a question here... can linux support dx10 games and most of the 3d software??

Asking this type of question is like asking what is the best car but from my own personal experience I would say Ubuntu Linux or Linux Mint. Easiest to install, detected all my hardware devices. Only my Canon Canoscan 440DF and KWorld TV Tuner doesn't work. These 2 devices doesn't work either in the other distros I tried - Fedora, Mandriva, openSUSE, PCLinux OS, Sabayon Linux and ELive.

err i dont really think linux suits gaming, at least for now. u might wanna go for a gaming console instead for gaming :}

Actually you can play quite a few games on linux... I've played COD 2, Sauerbraten, UT2003 quite nicely indeed. And all that too on Ubuntu 8.04 64 bit. Check out the WineHQ site for what works (easily).

I have recently bought myself a reasonably spec'd home PC (Intel Q8400 quadcore, 4GB RAM, Nvidia 9500GT, 1TB HDD) and loaded in Ubuntu 9.04 64 bit on it. In terms of usability, so far I have found Ubuntu to be pretty alright - I can play videos and audio, download files via P2P and Rapidshare, browse the net, rip CDs, burn discs, convert video files and what not, but I have to be honest and say that if one is looking for something that works just like MS Windows, then one should just use Windows.

With the advice of a friend who's been a Linux user for years, I decided to keep an open mind and try Linux. I'm not regretting the move (yet)..

On the minus side though, I am finding the latest Ubuntu 9.04 64bit edition a bit unstable compared to the OpenSuse 11.1 64bit edition that I have recently loaded into my work laptop (dual boot with Windows 7RC). While Ubuntu boots up faster and operates quite a bit speedier than OpenSuse (probably due to Ubuntu's support for the new EXT4 filesystem), I have been experiencing some weird issues with it - the movie player (SMPlayer) sometimes makes a 'pfffft' noise and refuses to output audio until I exit and launch it again, the Compiz 3D thing often creates weird artifacts on screen when I run the GCompris educational games etc.

Maybe I should go with OpenSuse on my home PC, but since it doesn't support EXT4 out of the box, I will need to backup my data in the /HOME partition first, I guess.

Well, if Mint's 32-bit limitation is a deal-breaker for you, you'd be more limited in terms of choices. Many of the popular free ones nowadays by default come w/o proprietary codecs. But let's clear up one misconception first: it's possible to add the proprietary codecs using entirely GUI operations. Tools such as Adept and Synaptic are equipped to do so. However, why do most of the how-to's on the net give examples using complicated-looking command lines? My guesses:

1) Creating screenshots is troublesome compared to copy and pasting instructions, and
2) Once you get familiar with it, it's actually faster to go the CLI way. Just cut and paste, easy-peasy. However intuitive a GUI is, a mouse is never as accurate as fast key typing and copy/paste.

Installing proprietary drivers such as NVidia, Broadcom etc is simple. I use Kubuntu 9.04 and it actually tells me that I still lack some proprietary drivers and I have a nice GUI to download and activate them. It takes all of 5 mins (if Screamyx doesn't screw you up first) to get this done. For the proprietary codecs, in 9.04, I have a nice alert that tells me I may need to install additional codecs the first time I run Amarok (music player) and Dragon (video player). And yes, it allows me to install with a button click too.

Let me give you another perspective on the "ease of installation" compared to Windows: every time I install Windows XP (no experience using Vista, sorry) on one of the machines in the office, the default install is virtually unable to get on the net for anything. Both ethernet and wifi can't be detected. Sure, if I have the installer ready, I just need to slot in the disc and run setup.exe. But I've been caught without the right drivers many times and it's a chore to search for them (especially if the machine is a LowYat assembled variety). Ditto for the graphics drivers and sometimes even the USB controllers. On top of that, I have a batch of laptops in the office where XP installation can't even detect the freakin' hard drive (due to XP CD lacking the correct SATA drivers). Yes, almost all of these issues can be resolved using the exact same workflow: download and execute setup.exe. Predictable. Tedious.

Using my Kubuntu live CD, not everything works out of the box. Fine. But basic things like ethernet and non-3D drivers are typically settled out of the box. So even if my wifi doesn't work, I don't need another machine just to download the drivers 'cos I can use the ethernet connection instead.

Getting over Linux's own set of peculiarities no doubt has a learning curve. But come on, if you're a power user on Windows, I'm sure you had some sort of learning curve as well. I'm pretty darned sure that most of the codecs you use on Windows don't come by default. And you had to hunt them down one by one (alright, I concede that CCCP is a life-saver, but that wasn't Microsoft either). In Kubuntu, I had to install basically one meta-package to download virtually all the codecs I need. Yes, I did have to hunt that line down on Google, but that was a one-liner coming from one search.

One additional advantage of Linux's package management: even third party apps not included in the defaut repos can be updated readily using the same mechanism that you use for basic OS updates. You mentioned that you'd probably use VMWare or VirtualBox to run Windows. I prefer VirtualBox nowadays. I did not download the .deb package to install manually. What I did was to add the 3rd party repo for VirtualBox and install using the package manager. I've successfully gotten 3 updates to VirtualBox over the past few months just doing this. How often do you go hunting for the latest ATI drivers by visiting their web site manually if you were using Windows?

I strongly suspect that your (and many others') definition of "easy to setup" for Windows stems from the fact that you're familiar with it. Many others here would strongly disagree with you, but that's because we are familiar with Linux. You'd only be able to see it from our point of view if you actually took the effort to experience what we've been experiencing. Unlike yourself, most of us definitely would have had previous experience using Windows. So I think it'd be fairer for us to make a comparison

Good luck, Wong

Mint 8 seems nice. Anyone have any thought on it?

I m downloading Linux Mint 8 64Bit edition...to check out the elegance feel...

linux gui is still pretty crap compare to other OS'es

I not meant to insult you, but your question shows that you are not ready to "turn to linux".
do some simple research, about what linux actually, and how it works.
You may start with multiboot first. Try to avoid ubuntu as it try to be as close to windows in term of simplicity thus you may not get much input from it, but dont blindly jump into slackware or genntoo, or you'll ended up learning nothing .'intermediate' distros such as openSUSE and Fedora, or debian if you want 'ubuntu-ish' enviroment will do; these distros will provide good platform for beginner to learn.

---

Added on March 5, 2010, 1:37 amNo, it was your GC that crappy enough to make compizfusion won't run on your machine.
Or you are ignorant enough for not even try to learn how to tweak your GUI.

unlike windows that designed with home and office user in mind, or mac that obviously for eye candy and so-called stability(because there are nothing to tweak to begin with); Linux is developed primarily to power the servers in first place (who the retard that want flashy server interface?). Linux as desktop OS's is not well established as its server counterpart, but with skillful yet creative tweaks it will lure Steve Job's fans out from its darkness captive.

This post has been edited by failed.hashcheck: Mar 5 2010, 11:53 AM

arch linux ... the fastest linux

i suggest u go for linux mint..
much more user friendly...
and its alot better for new user
its bundled package kinda great.. u cant play videos, youtube all thing out of box edy..

ok

I've tried some linux distro, most of them have HCL- hardware compatibility list. so u can check ur hardware there or simply run the live cd version to test your harware before you install them. i personally recommend Ubuntu for beginner like me, just enable community repositories for 3rd party driver and software. Or maybe you can buy professional support from Ubuntu, since you are willing to pay . For me, I'm happy with openSolaris for other task besides online gaming

Any issues with Opensolaris on HArdware compatibity. I plan to run on hp mini 210.

OpenSolaris does not use the Linux kernel. I guess you probably have to test it to know..

anyone currently using the latest Linux Mint? Please share info.

For all of you who are facing difficulties with Broadcom wireless and OpenSuSE - there is a solution.

You just have to add the "packman" repository to the software manager and install the package "broadcom-sta".

http://packman.links2linux.de/package/broadcom-wl

SuSE even provides a one click install, when you follow this link, you don't even need to add the repository...

yea..... way to go...

i believe that sooner windows will be forgotten... hehehhe...

anyone installed openSUSE 11.2? any comment?

the d.load quite slow this few days....

Well, this IS interesting to know

I'm using ubuntu lucid 64bit on my athlon 64bit based lappy, dual-boot with vista. The hiccups I experienced when upgrading from karmic to lucid is that it did not detect the Huawei E1550 usb stick....and also the flash plugins for 64 bit. Well, there is always uncle google to give u the solution.

For Flash 64-bit, I don't know why but apparently, if you install the package "ubuntu-restricted-extras" you'll get Flash working. Worked for me, but I don't know about anyone else...

I think Adobe drop the support for Flash x64 for Linux version now..
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/20...ext-version.ars


For flash, I normally use


This post has been edited by GameSky: Jun 19 2010, 10:34 PM