# Dell goes Ubuntu at last â is it the end for Windows?



## Guest (May 25, 2007)

Dell today made it official, unveiling three consumer systems -- the XPSTM 410n and DimensionTM E520n desktops and the InspironTM E1505n notebook -- with the Ubuntu 7.04 Linux distribution factory installed.

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=37339


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

The end for Windows? Hardly. Mac OS X is one heck of a lot more cohesive than Ubuntu is, and it's still not a match for Windows' might in the market place.

However, will it take market share away from Windows? You bet.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2007)

Kung said:


> The end for Windows? Hardly.


 That wasn't my sentiment. I c/p one of the headlines and used it as the subject for my topic. 

But yes, it will probably take some market share away from Windows.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Actually I hope lots of people use it and it causes the Ubuntu apps to increase... because a little healthy competition is best for us...

Then MS can't sit on their buts all day and keep retreading the same product from 8 years ago that just eats up more system resources and doesn't give more bang for the buck.

oh, forgot to add... In my humble opinion.


----------



## lharvey (Jul 1, 2003)

I installed this very same version of Ubuntu on a Dell Optiplex with 1Gb Ram 2.4 Processor.

It ran sweet. Very nice. Found all the hardware pretty much.

ISSUE::::

File sharing from Ubuntu to windows is clunky at best. Could not quite get the smb.cfg file to work properly Searched all the forums and only came up with the same anxwer over and opver.

Unfortunately this is not something that you would want to throw on a machine in your existing Windows network and expect the average office worker to use. The average office worker hardly knows howto use windows as it is.

Ubuntu needs a few more GUI's for the average at home user and small office user (no IT support) so that they can more easily install hardware and software.

I'm gonna try again with Ubunto just to play with it and seeif I can make it work properly.

As this is no being offered as a factory install, More users will opt for this instead of paying for a known OS. They will be sadly disappointed when they get their shiny new dell home and they find that thee isn't a lot of plug and play built into Ubuntu..

Just my humble opinion.

Lee


----------



## Junkmanme (Dec 16, 2006)

I tried Firefox........(Mozilla)........Went back to Windows ME (lousy).

I just don't know enuf to fool with the others. (Not a techie!!)

Firefox (because of my ignorance) only screwed up my system. Took a day to straighten it out.

ignoramus,
Bruce


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

I just recieved my Ubuntu disks from the office over seas to be able to install on other folks computers, i however remain unimpressed fro the need of 256 megs of ram to use the product, i like other open source apps cause they do not require as much ram to run to proggys..... that sed i think that as more people make the switch to open source and find it really is as easy to use as thoe of us who have played with it for some years figgered out long ago, the folks who write the other OS will have to make theirs work properlly beofre marketing it as the next "cureall" to the last problem.

I agree that many people will be disapointed in the lack of plug and play and lack of tech support for most open source products as when something is released free becuase they want more folks to use it, and the developers are doing it out of the goodness of their heart [and maybe a grant from some government funding program] the problems that show up take a long time to get worked out and patched or fixed.... been there waited cause although i can program in several forms i really dont read and write script like i could.

There are several forms of open source OS out there that are good, and Dell tried offering the "Lindows" version a couple years back at great dismay, this Ubuntu will be no different in that manner because people have been "programed" to accept microsoft product as "normal" and those same people will continue to claim they are not "techies" ..... I am just a logger, sawmiller who wanted a computer and learned the machines are just another machine to be used and they needed software to make them do what i wanted, no big secret [at least not like there is to a sewing machine!... try running one of those monsters!] but a country boy survives and self taught got me a nice system admin job for awhile til the company went bust.

If only Unix were not so hard to write for to get things ive grown acustomed to to using, i would just go play with unix again, for it is the most stable program for computing ive seen without having to reboot every day or three.

William


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

Buy a Dell with a Linux distro? Why? Linux is for the most part, free. So unless Dell gives a generous price discount for the Linux based systems, you'd be better off having the Windows license - even if you were a Linux geek.

Linux really shines as a server, but I wouldn't want it on my desktop box. As much as Linux as a desktop has improved, its still nowhere near as convenient, intuitive or as supported as Windows.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2007)

OntarioMan said:


> Buy a Dell with a Linux distro? Why? Linux is for the most part, free. So unless Dell gives a generous price discount for the Linux based systems, you'd be better off having the Windows license - even if you were a Linux geek.


 That's the whole point. The Dell linux boxes are much cheaper because there are no license fees added to the price.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

There only $50 cheaper. Pay the $50 get the vista license, sell it on ebay for $75. Make $25 on the deal.


----------



## backwoodsman7 (Mar 22, 2007)

Kung said:


> The end for Windows? Hardly. Mac OS X is one heck of a lot more cohesive than Ubuntu is, and it's still not a match for Windows' might in the market place.


Yeah, but to run MacOS, you gotta have a Mac, which is a lot more expensive than a PC for the same capabilities. Linux will run on any box that'll run Windows, so I think it'll end up with a big chunk of market share. 1-2 years ago Linux users were usually less than 1% of visitors on my website; when I checked this morning it was 2.5%, which is more or less typical these days. (Mac is 5%, by the way.)



OntarioMan said:


> Linux really shines as a server, but I wouldn't want it on my desktop box. As much as Linux as a desktop has improved, its still nowhere near as convenient, intuitive or as supported as Windows.


If it were 4-5 years ago I might agree with you, but the current Linux desktops (most prefer KDE, some prefer Gnome) completely blow Windoze out of the water. A complete novice might not even notice they're not on Windows; at the same time, the Linux desktops are way more powerful & customizable than Windows. Every time I have to do much of anything on a Windows box, I end up happier that most of my machines run Linux.

I'm about to sell a laptop, and the buyer wants XP on it, instead of the Linux I had on it. What a nightmare -- install XP, install the new updater, install updates, install SP2, install more updates, then yet another crop of updates, most of which are fixes for security flaws; then something crashed (2 things, actually) so start at the beginning and do it all over. Second time around, I imaged the drive at several points, which is quick & easy to do with Linux, in case something crashed again. With Linux, it goes: Install, then update or not as you prefer (since there are drastically fewer security issues), maybe install some software if there's anything you need that didn't come on the CD, and you're done.

-Dan


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

???? There's just as many patches and updates for the Linux distro's as there are for Windows. If you run specialized software, well you're stuck with virtualization or give it up.

I'm curious to see what Mac throws out this fall to compete with Vista. IMHO, Linux just isn't there, and likely isn't ever going to get there.

Now if you just want to check email and surf the web, Linux rocks.

The Wandering Quilter's Life in a Box!


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

backwoodsman7 said:


> Yeah, but to run MacOS, you gotta have a Mac, which is a lot more expensive than a PC for the same capabilities.


For the same capabilities, yes. But I don't know too many people who buy a Mac just for the same capabilities. They either buy it for one of two reasons:

1) They're disenfranchised with Windows, or
2) They want the advantages that Mac OS X offers.

Yes, you have to buy a Mac to use it, but you can load Windows AND Linux on it. You can't do that with any other computer.

Furthermore, there are a lot of free programs and capabilities that come standard with a Mac that DON'T come standard with a PC. If you had to go out and buy the same software, you'd then be paying more for a PC than for a Mac.



> If it were 4-5 years ago I might agree with you, but the current Linux desktops (most prefer KDE, some prefer Gnome) completely blow Windoze out of the water.


But they STILL require some knowledge of Linux at the command line, and if an error occurs, you're on your own, by and large. Even Dell, as they're selling Ubuntu, basically says "We don't support everything."

In other words, when I bought my Mac, I bought it for 3 reasons:

1) Wanted the advantages/strengths that OS X and Apple are known for;
2) Wanted support
3) Wanted the reliability of Unix

With (most) versions of Linux, you get 3).

I'm not arguing that Linux will get better and better, and will take more market share - I don't argue that at all. But my original statement that Mac OS X is one heck of a lot more cohesive than Ubuntu is still stands - as good as Ubuntu is (and I think it's REALLY good), OS X is more cohesive. It's supported by the same company that builds their computers; and the company has been around for quite a while; and you don't *have* to go to the command line for anything.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

CJ said:


> I'm curious to see what Mac throws out this fall to compete with Vista. IMHO, Linux just isn't there, and likely isn't ever going to get there.


IMHO, what Mac already has out there (OS X) competes with Vista. There are one or two things that Vista can do that Mac OS X can't (small stuff like an improved mail client); the rest of the stuff are all things that OS X has done for years (searching metadata instantly, for instance).

That being said, I'm looking forward to Leopard.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

Kung said:


> IMHO, what Mac already has out there (OS X) competes with Vista. There are one or two things that Vista can do that Mac OS X can't (small stuff like an improved mail client); the rest of the stuff are all things that OS X has done for years (searching metadata instantly, for instance).
> 
> That being said, I'm looking forward to Leopard.


I agree. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing what Mac throws out there with Leopard. I just might be tempted to jump platforms...but it'd have to be something significant, I have too much software there's no alternatives for.

The Wandering Quilter's Life in a Box!


----------



## backwoodsman7 (Mar 22, 2007)

CJ said:


> ???? There's just as many patches and updates for the Linux distro's as there are for Windows.


Perhaps, depending on the distro. But installing them isn't a significant security issue as it is with Windows, so I consider it optional, at least for that reason.



> If you run specialized software, well you're stuck with virtualization or give it up.


One of the few good reasons to still run Windows. The other that springs to mind would be if you have to support Windows users, but most aren't in that situation.



> Now if you just want to check email and surf the web, Linux rocks.


Now it's my turn for the ????  Are you sure you're thinking of the current crop of Linux distros? Most of the more popular ones come with all the software most folks will ever use, and tons more for free download.

-Dan


----------



## backwoodsman7 (Mar 22, 2007)

Kung said:


> For the same capabilities, yes. But I don't know too many people who buy a Mac just for the same capabilities. They either buy it for one of two reasons:
> 
> 1) They're disenfranchised with Windows, or
> 2) They want the advantages that Mac OS X offers.


Well, Macs aren't really on the radar for me (or for most computer users), but most Mac users I've known over the years bought Macs for one of two slightly different reasons:

1) They learned on Macs in school and never used anything else, or
2) Someone(s) told them Macs were easier to use. While that's arguably true, that ease of use comes at a very high price, that most folks don't need to pay.



> But they STILL require some knowledge of Linux at the command line


Quite the contrary. I use mostly PCLinuxOS these days, and there's no reason why a typical user ever has to get near a command line. My experience with Ubuntu is brief and a version or two old, but I'd be very surprised if that's not true of it as well, and there are undoubtedly a number of others these days. I've switched a number of non-computer-person friends from Windows to Linux, and none have had any problem. At most, they have to learn several slightly different (but easy to find) places to click to accomplish their tasks. They've all been very happy for the change after having severe virus problems with Windows.



> and if an error occurs, you're on your own, by and large.


You can't call someone on the phone (but most Windows users can't either), but you're hardly on your own. There are some very active Linux help forums on the web, some general and some specific to a particular distro, where competent help can be had reasonably quickly. And it bears noting that problems are a lot less likely with Linux than with Windows.

-Dan


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

backwoodsman7 said:


> Well, Macs aren't really on the radar for me (or for most computer users), but most Mac users I've known over the years bought Macs for one of two slightly different reasons:
> 
> 1) They learned on Macs in school and never used anything else, or
> 2) Someone(s) told them Macs were easier to use. While that's arguably true, that ease of use comes at a very high price, that most folks don't need to pay.


I paid $500 for my Mac. Not exactly exorbitant.

True, it did not come with a monitor or keyboard, but the one I bought was specifically for switchers - one can get a monitor and keyboard for an extra $100, and even today, two years after buying it, I have people wanting to buy it for what I paid for it.  NO WAY can that be done with a computer.

They hold their resale value *VERY* well - they're the Toyota of computers.

As far as being 'told' they were easier to use, what I did was bring my wife along and sit her down at a Mac, and let her ask questions. She *hates* computers, and yet she is now the 'graphics artists' for her hospital floor because 'this is so easy it's not funny!'

Now, this being done, I've done the same thing with Ubuntu.  My argument isn't that "OS X is better than Ubuntu." Just that there are reasons that the average computer user might prefer OS X on a Mac over Linux. Let's face it - I know * ALOT * of users who, when told "You have to go online and search for the answer" more or less would consider that a dealkiller.

If you don't agree, then you haven't run across some of the customers I've had.  



> Quite the contrary. I use mostly PCLinuxOS these days, and there's no reason why a typical user ever has to get near a command line. My experience with Ubuntu is brief and a version or two old, but I'd be very surprised if that's not true of it as well, and there are undoubtedly a number of others these days. I've switched a number of non-computer-person friends from Windows to Linux, and none have had any problem. At most, they have to learn several slightly different (but easy to find) places to click to accomplish their tasks. They've all been very happy for the change after having severe virus problems with Windows.


That I don't doubt. I didn't mean to imply that Linux frequently requires use of the command line. But even my Mac (ONCE ) has had a 'kernel' fault - can happen when an upgrade is done or such; and if that happens, I seriously doubt the standard user (on a Mac OR on Linux) can easily just figure it out.



> You can't call someone on the phone (but most Windows users can't either), but you're hardly on your own. There are some very active Linux help forums on the web, some general and some specific to a particular distro, where competent help can be had reasonably quickly. And it bears noting that problems are a lot less likely with Linux than with Windows.


I don't argue with any of this.  But the simple fact is that customer service and technical support is a *HUGE* factor when purchasing a computer - sometimes, the deciding factor. That's why I mentioned it.

There are other reasons as well, for guys like me. When I purchase an Intel Mac in about 3 months, I will be able to load (and more importantly, tweak, learn, etc.) FOUR different operating systems (Vista, XP, Linux AND OS X). You can't do that on any other kind of computer. As a computer geek that saves a LOT of money.

FYI, it's not my intent to argue.  I'm not trying to make the case (and if I've said this somewhere, I need to change it) that OS X is 'better than' Linux - anyone who knows me KNOWS I love my Ubuntu.  Just that there are very real and valid reasons for why some would choose OS X (on a Mac) over Linux on a PC.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Linux need to come a long way before its going to beat windows. Not that it is that bad, but what makes linux so great is what makes it so bad as a desktop replacement. 

WHAT desktop do you run, kde, cde, gnu, straight X, there are lots of desk top managers and they look different. To be able to mass support Linux there needs to be one. Dell as other linux supporters have found, supporting Linux is HARD when you dont have technical people at the desktop. Ubuntu has 6 window mangers available, 4 command line shells and TONS of software that Dell dont have any control over.

I support SUSE from novell and Novell has the same problem.

Its going to be interesting to see what dell does and how long it will continue to support linux for end users.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

I'd agree.

Linux seems to have so many variants for the same tasks - that it becomes annoying and even frustrating. Different distributions, desktops, shells, servers, software - and the list goes on and on. Linux is a good thing, no doubt about that - but Linux needs less and not more - perhaps there is too much choice when it comes to all aspects of Linux.

I really doubt you'll see Dell continue very long with their "Linux systems" - the market is just too small and there is simply no money in it for them.



Gary in ohio said:


> Linux need to come a long way before its going to beat windows. Not that it is that bad, but what makes linux so great is what makes it so bad as a desktop replacement.
> 
> WHAT desktop do you run, kde, cde, gnu, straight X, there are lots of desk top managers and they look different. To be able to mass support Linux there needs to be one. Dell as other linux supporters have found, supporting Linux is HARD when you dont have technical people at the desktop. Ubuntu has 6 window mangers available, 4 command line shells and TONS of software that Dell dont have any control over.
> 
> ...


----------



## 14yearpcmaker (Mar 11, 2007)

Linux is great, considering the fact that it's open source, but it isn't a great replacement for the typical household computer...no one wants to tweak Linux, and then install a software emulator, if you want to run Windows software. (And, not everything works on a software emulator!!!) All-in-all, I'd go with the Windows system, and multi-boot with Linux. (or the other way around)...My .02


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Kung, I didn't know you were a mac guy.

I'm sorry. We can't be friends anymore.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2007)

Chuck said:


> Kung, I didn't know you were a mac guy.
> 
> I'm sorry. We can't be friends anymore.


 You and Dean are PLESK people! We can't be friends anymore!


----------



## MeanDean (Apr 16, 2002)

ladycat said:


> You and Dean are PLESK people! We can't be friends anymore!


Only Plesk because that's what the hosting provider offers.

Personally, I'd go back to cPanel if given the chance ... 
... that said, and speaking of Mac's ... this via a link on blogs4God:


Adrian Warnock said:


> Christian Blogosphere Begins to Apostasize:
> 
> "Bill Gates beware! Phil Johnson has bought a Mac! I wasn't going to tell you this quite yet, but this same week I too have taken the plunge and ordered a MacBook. I didn't go for the pro, not just because of the cost but because I think that I will prefer a small screen for many purposes ...


The problem appears more serious than any of us thought!


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Nooooooooooooo!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2007)

MeanDean said:


> Only Plesk because that's what the hosting provider offers.
> 
> Personally, I'd go back to cPanel if given the chance ...


cPanel has it's shortcomings, but it's 10 times better than Plesk. I feel your pain.


----------

