I think I can sum it up: I was typing the other day... a window poped up. Something had happened. I inadvertantly hit enter (since I was already typing) and as a result, still don't know what the message said... Well, that and I lost what I was typing. The irritation factor was a 9.6.

This is a serious usability problem in my view, and one that isn't restricted to Windows. With task bars and all manner of other ways to display important information nowadays, there really is no excuse for a GUI system that permits applications to grab focus for a modal dialog whilst the user is typing.

I am not sure where these comparisons are going.

Each major operating system has its advantages and disadvantages depending on how it is implemented.

Listen there is no way I would want to move a brigade of secretaries over to Linux. I remember how much trouble my wife's law firm had getting those folks off of WordPerfect 5.2 for god's sake!

However, if I want a solid inexpensive server with lots of GUI tools to help me set things up then I go with Linux any day of the week. If I have a bunch of sysadmins, developers and geeks and I want to stop the endless bitching over the limits of WinNT as a desktop environment I tell them to install linux on their own and don't call IT when they screw it up. They love it. They get all the power they want and the corporate IT boys get a whole group of people they can tell to screw off when they call in for support.

Each OS has its own set of issues and strengths. Listen, if I had a rich aunt who never used a computer before and wanted to get on the internet I would tell her to get a mac.

Everything has its place. The trick is for Linux to clue in on its target audience of small server implementations and geek IT desktops.

________________________________________________ __

I'm very pro-Linux, biased if you like. However comparing XP to SuSE is a little like comparing a mountain bike to a racer. XP is geared toward home/business use, Linux tends to be geared toward technical and back end users.

They are both good for different reasons, and have a lot to learn from each other. But do we really have to compare chalk and cheese every time?

Can't we just accept things on their relative merits?

I don't see how Linux and Windows can be compared. They are both good, but for different reasons. Everyone should just calm down and do there own thing based on what they need.

Someone else may have already pointed this out, but I'd like to stress that the biggest difference between Windows and Linux has always been the licensing -- and that gap has only gotten wider with XP (more favorable to Linux, that is), according to:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/09/234525 8&mode=thread

A slight correction, Mandrake 7.2 (and I presume later versions)does this as well (it uses the Redhat hardware detection program, if it works, why invent something different?)

It worked for me going from a Duron 900, Iwill Mobo, Geforce 2 MX400, Realtek 8139 NIC to an old P166MMX, Intel mobo, Ati Rage IIc and Intel nic flawlessly, only asking for the disk when it came to reconfiguring Xfree86 at the end of the process.

Against this, a Windows 2000 Pro installation gave me nothing but blue screen hell after swapping from Abit KT7 RAID to Iwill KT266(I think) mobo with no other hardware changes.

It's taken a while, but now I find I have fewer hardware configuration issues in Linux than I have with any version of Windows I've used.(still not used XP and thankful for small mercies!)

Let's not get applications for an OS confused with the actual OS here. I haven't actually used Windows XP, so I don't know if the imaging software you are using is installed with XP or not, but this software has nothing to do with the XP OS other than the fact it was written to run on that particular platform. This is more a question of the availability of user friendly software, which is obviously vastly in M$'s favour due mainly to their HUGE market penetration as well as hardware support from the vendors.

There is nothing stopping Linux from having the same easy to use software, it just hasn't been done because almost all Linux users are more technically adept than the average Windows user, and software is made with that in mind. Why spend weeks/months tweaking the UI for your application when you know all your users will be very capable of using your product to its full potential without all the bells and whistles?

I remain a Slackware addict as of 8.0 and the only hardware autodetection it handles is for network cards (which is undeniably handy for getting a new box online quickly), which is implemented basically through a crude "modprobe *" which ends when a module loads happily.

Everything else -- configuring X, compiling 3rd-party drivers, hunting down the module and parameter combinations for sound cards, even manually editing isapnp.conf for legacy devices -- somehow feels like a natural part of the process for me.

Of course, I'd probably feel different about it if I spent most of my time setting up desktops rather than servers. Either way, Slackware works fine for me, and it does it without being either presumptious or patronizing. That's all I can ask.

Of course SuSE have a download version! You can either grab their one-disk ISO or make yourself a boot floppy and install via-FTP. Or install from the one disk version and update with the extra packages you require via FTP.
Check out ftp.suse.com and its mirrors...

Who are you kidding?
Regardless of the task, WinXp always wins.
Why? Because microsoft always does it RIGHT.
Linux takes 3 years to realize their mistakes.