what are the specs of your pc? That is want you need to base things on. Ubuntu is ok. It works alright but will require quite a bit of your time to learn how to use correctly but wait, any OS does, even mac. Mac is no easier to use than any other system. I know plenty of staff and faculty where I work that get stumped by mac. So dont fall for the fan boy crap.
Ubuntu says it requires 256 ram and like a 1gig cpu. I have the ram but only a 850 P3. It runs fine though if maybe a little slow. Video can be a weak area of ubuntu though. depends on your vid card. Ubuntu does have a user forum though, kinda like ours and most people there are quite helpful. There is a lot of free software but not all of it is click and install. Some of it requires terminal work to even download. Synaptics is ok for getting some software otherwise there is also automatix.
Windows: I avoid 200 like the plague. It is so slow a person can go grey while waiting for its THREE start up screens to complete. It takes FOREVER to boot even on a fast system. It is stable though. However, its plug and play capacity is limited and most new hardware and software is not being ported to 2000. 2000 also probably will not be supported by microsoft much longer. That means no more security updates or anything. that also means that even software from MS will not be made to work on 2000. 2000 does require less ram than ubuntu or xp but I would be very surprised to find it new and with that said, licensing will be iffy.
XP is the much better system. DO NOT get the update. The update will only cause issues in the long run. See, xp does not run over DOS at all. ME does. So if you update, it will replace certain files but will leave other ones behind. This was even a problem with just upgrading from 95 to 98. Get the full version of home. It will be all you need. One thing though is that you MUST have 256 ram IF you want to use the system restore after you install service pack 2. If you dont, you will need to disable as many start up services as possible to maintain a stable and somewhat speedy system. I suppose you might be ok with 196. You can search around for the best price but you need the retail version not the oem unless you are buying a new motherboard, hard disk drive and Ram. It is not cheap for home, about $180 BUT XP will be fully supported by microsoft till 2014. SO you will still get upgrades till then and more than likely your pc will die before that time! Smiley XP is faster than 2000 by a long shot. It is stable and will continue to get support from hardware and software vendors.
Mac is not even an option unless you buy a new pc.
If you want cheap, then ubuntu is the way HOWEVER open office documents can only be opened by open office because no other office suite will open them. So you must keep software compatibility in mind.
If you want to continue with what you know, XP is probably the best system microsoft has ever made. Other than 3.1 Wink
Hey Eldar, I agree with much of what you say; however, my Mac recommendation is
not fan boy crap. I don't even use a Mac. I'm not even particularly fond of Apple. I could say, and have said, much negative about Apple products; however, my recommendation would stand. True, any computer requires learning. True, some people have difficulty learning how to use a Mac
especially if they have used Windows for some time.
I am a technology consultant. I advised based upon user needs. Terry's original question indicated that he is not likely a Windows power user. I have recommended Macs to many relatively unschooled Windows users who could afford a Mac.
None have been the least disappointed. They like their new Macs because hardware management is vastly simpler than any version of Windows will ever be (considering that Windows must support hardware from a theoretically unlimited number of vendors). Inexperienced users like their Macs because the user interfaces have been designed for usability. Use is intuitive. As a designer of user interfaces, I can say that many Microsoft interfaces absolutely belong in a hall of shame. Period. I could start a new thread about their neglect in this area. The best thing about putting a Mac in the hands of someone intimidated by PC's is that most come away with a feeling of comfort and empowerment over their PC technology.
Some things are designed much better for ease of learning. This is true for any product. This is an Apple strength. Does this make Apple the best OS on the planet? Heck no! Windows is a much better choice for many environments -- especially for many enterprise deployments. I would only rarely recommend Windows as a server, never a Mac and rarely Linux -- preferring to recommend Unix and Solaris for servers where possible. There is no best OS, or any product for that matter. There is best for a purpose, use and user. Does Mac's ease of use mean that it has a direct interface to the brain -- requiring no learning at all? No.
As for MS Office documents, are you familiar with
OpenOffice? I have access to both MS Office and OpenOffice; however, I primarily use OpenOffice, despite the fact that I am a power user of Word, Excel and Powerpoint. OpenOffice is a true office suite in that the applications were designed together as a whole, as compared to MS Office, which is a collection of separate office applications that Microsoft acquired separately from other companies. Try to do advanced formatting in Excel, Word, Powerpoint and Visio. There are few similarities beyond the buttons and menus. OpenOffice is compatible with MS Office. It opens, edits and saves MS Office files without a hiccup. OpenOffice is becoming the
de facto standard in many countries outside the US because of cost and because of the fact that nearly all MS Office files are saved in a proprietary binary format. Try OpenOffice for free. Better still, use it permanently for free. By the way, OpenOffice demands a much smaller hard drive footprint than MS Office.
Is OpenOffice better than MS Office? No. Many enterprises would not realize a cost savings by switching to OpenOffice; however, enterprises needing true open standards would definitely benefit from OpenOffice. Is OpenOffice a full office suite ready for prime time use? Yes. Does it require a steeper learning curve
for users familiar with MS Office? Yes; however, it costs nothing in terms of dollars to use. That cost savings, plus MS Office compatibility, make it a strong choice for the home small office user.
As for Win 2k boot times, I feel that there are many more important issues than boot times. Boot times are a minor inconvenience. Being frustrated because you cannot figure out how to do a simple task is a major inconvenience. Win2k, Win XP and most other OS's can be optimized for boot speed. Also, boot speed should not be measured by the time from power on to presentation of a desktop. XP optimizes "boot time" by pushing many activities back to after the desktop is presented. This means that XP runs very slowly after the desktop is presented until all the background activities have finished. To me, boot time represents the time from power on to a usable OS. Other OS's beside Linux have tried to simulate shorter boot times, and I believe that Fedora is the worst offender. Until recently, Fedora took forever to boot precisely because of its elaborate splash screens, etc. that are intended to make the user feel that the process is going along swiftly. Also, and more importantly, security issues are a much more important convenience issue than boot times.
Note that Linux and Unix OS's require rebooting only on an extremely infrequent basis. As I type, my workstation has been up for 21 days, 19 hours and 8 minutes. This is a relatively short amount of time for me, despite the fact that I maintain my workstation on the cutting edge. Linux, Solaris and Unix rarely require rebooting for software installs, driver installs, driver loading and loading, etc. The most common reason for a required Unix, Linux or Solaris reboot is an upgrade of the OS, and here, upgrades are incremental and much, much more seamless than upgrading the OS on a Win platform. Many of these servers run over a year between reboots.
As for hardware requirements, given that a user has a PC that was likely set up with Win ME originally, one can easily assume that the hardware set is much closer to Linux requirements as opposed to Win requirements, either for Win 2k or XP. I've never seen the specs you quote for Ubuntu use -- the official specs are much, much lower, as are posted user experiences (approx. 700 Mhz CPU with about 128 Mb RAM). I've used Linux live Cd's on PC's with processors not far above 1 Ghz, and I seriously doubt that 1GB RAM is needed; however, I would be more than happy to see some more information in that area -- precisely because I often recommend Ubuntu. If requirements for Ubuntu are as you say, I can easily recommend Linuxes with much lower hardware requirements.
Yes, using an upgrade license can sometimes be a pain; however, one must consider whether it is worth an extra $100 for the user. Given that the user is not expressing a strong desire to trash the PC and buy new, it is difficult to advise an additional $100 investment above the $90 upgrade price. Additionally the entire $180 investment for a full XP seat would likely be wasted once the user purchases his or her next PC, which will probably come with XP or Vista installed. My recommendation is that if the user is going to sink $180 into an old PC, that user should seriously consider putting that $180 towards a new PC with XP already installed. True, the version of XP on the new PC is not usually transferable between machines; however, this is a detail that likely means little to an average user. Have I purchased full licenses for XP? Yes. I build my own PC's, and ethically, I do not have a licensed previous version of Win 98 or ME to use for the upgrade.
Lastly note that in my post, I tried to keep things as simple as possible -- shooting for the level of experience of the user. This is a very important user needs issue. I responded quickly precisely for that reason. Time and time again I have witnessed well meaning posters confuse and intimidate an experienced user with technical questions and details. I provided a solid summary -- with options -- based on information the user had provided. I consider Terry's information sufficient to provide a preliminary set of options. I provided supporting detail for those options. I endeavor to make my recommendations as clear as possible, and I work to present options at the level of the user experience. By the way, I know that this discussion has progressed far beyond what Terry needs for his PC.
[edit 13 April: fixed many typos numerous typos and clarified some detail]
