Linux OS

Reply

  #1  
Old 03-22-19, 05:04 PM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
Linux OS

Searching for an alternative to Windows OS but the variety of Linux/Ubuntu OS's is mind boggling. I’m looking for something as close to Windows GUI as possible and I think the Chalet 16.04.2 or Linux Mint 19.1 are pretty close to what I want. Both have nice Desktop, Menus and File explorer

I gave them a spin and I think they are both pretty good but I find the Chalet much easier on my first try.

Are you guys can suggest anything better?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 03-22-19, 06:25 PM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 33,597
Likes Received: 13
I have been using PCLinuxOS as my only OS for over ten years and find it to be a great OS. Nice thing is it is constantly updating through its software depository so you always have the latest version without reinstalling. If you want you can make a live DVD or USB flash drive and try it without installing. Note too the people answering in the forum in many cases are the same people who maintain the OS. http://www.pclinuxos.com/about/
 
  #3  
Old 03-22-19, 07:13 PM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
Thanks Ray but I think PCLinux runs mostly with scripts. Does it have a Desktop and StartMenu? I dont mind to learn a bit but I dont want to start learning a new OS scripts

As I mentioned I would like to have something looking similar to Windows
 
  #4  
Old 03-22-19, 08:20 PM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 33,597
Likes Received: 13
By start menu do you mean a menu to select applications? If so yes. Not sure what a desktop menu is. You can place shortcuts on the desktop. Personally I run with nothing but wallpaper. I use shortcut keys. I don't have a clue about scripts or why they are good or bad,

I am not really very savvy about what you are asking. I'd suggest you ask in the forums at PCLOS. PCLinuxOS-Forums - Index

I posted your question at: https://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/inde...6.new.html#new if you want to check for replies.
 
  #5  
Old 03-22-19, 08:27 PM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 19,221
Likes Received: 34
With all the choices available, I think you might be best served by loading a few of your choices onto USB drives and booting from that so you can test drive a little before loading it onto your main drive.
 
  #6  
Old 03-22-19, 09:48 PM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
Thanks Ray for the help, I will try the PCLinux and see how it is plus I will follow the answers, is any, on the forum link

Stickshift that’s what I did with the Chalet and LinuxMint, I tried them from a USB and I like both.
 
  #7  
Old 03-22-19, 10:03 PM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
Ray I checked the PCLinuxOS and comes in 2 versions, KDE Desktop and Mate Desktop and both are for 64bit system. Is your PC 64bit?

I have 2 laptops both 64bit with Windows10 and Windows 8.1 but the desktop I have where I plan to install Linux is 32bit and now it has Vista Home. It has Intel dual core 3GHz and 2GB RAM which I can expand to 4GB

The Mate Desktop looks good for me but if it is only for 64bit processor then I’m out of luck.
 
  #8  
Old 03-22-19, 11:30 PM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 33,597
Likes Received: 13
The repositories for software are 64 bit only. Are you sure your computer won't run 64 bit? Just because it has 32 bit OS installed doesn't necessarily mean it isn't 64 bit capable.
 

Last edited by ray2047; 03-23-19 at 05:10 AM.
  #9  
Old 03-23-19, 05:06 AM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
You are right Ray but looking on the motherboard specs I see nothing about 32/64bit, except that all the PCI slots I have are 32bit. My motherboard is Asus P5K3 Deluxe with the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, 3000MHz and Intel P31/P35 Chipset.

Just remember the other day I tried to install the Open Office 64bit and it said my system is not the right one.

I downloaded last night the PCLinux Mate and I will try it soon on my Laptop which is 64bit machine

BTW how do I remove a Linux OS if I install it on my hard drive? Is there a command within Linux to remove it?
 
  #10  
Old 03-23-19, 05:14 AM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 33,597
Likes Received: 13
No way to just delete. You must erase and reformat the partitions you used.

Of course if you use a live DVD or flash drive nothing is installed. You can even run the live flash drive version with persistence and it will retain changes you have made such as downloaded files and software added.
 
  #11  
Old 03-23-19, 07:50 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,938
kolias –

I think under Vista “system information” you can find out if your system is 64-bit capable. If you are running 32-bit Windows I’m pretty sure it also tells you whether the system is 64-bit capable or not. (I used to have Vista also).

click on the start menu and type msinfo32 is the start search box.
 
  #12  
Old 03-23-19, 08:57 AM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
You are right zoesdad, msinfo32 tells me "X86 - Based PC" and now we know for sure that I have a 32bit PC

Thanks for the tip
 
  #13  
Old 03-23-19, 09:00 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,938
Glad it helped!Good luck.
 
  #14  
Old 03-23-19, 03:51 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 406
Likes Received: 5
kolias:
You are right zoesdad, msinfo32 tells me "X86 - Based PC" and now we know for sure that I have a 32bit PC...
All that tells you is that you have 32-bit Windows installed, not that you have 64-bit hardware. A quick look around the web tells me the 6850 is a 64-bit processor. It wasn't uncommon late in the life cycle of XP for Mom'n'Pop PC shops to install 32-bit XP on 64-bit hardware because hardly anyone was making 32-bit hardware any more and economy of scale made 64-bit hardware cheaper. 64-bit XP never took off as a desktop OS because too few peripheral companies ever got serious about building drivers for it, so they threw 32-bit XP on 64-bit hardware to circumvent compatibility problems.

The easiest way to install any OS these days is to download the OS image (*.iso file) and use Rufus to flash it onto a thumb drive. Then you boot from the thumb drive (which might require some tweaking of the BIOS) and the install routine will lead you through the process. Your first trip through it will ask some questions you won't have a clue about. Accepting the defaults will produce a reasonable outcome, at least until you learn their shortcomings and know how to select something better suited to your needs.

Whatever Linux you choose, you could download both the 32 and 64-bit images, first flash the 64-bit to the thumb drive and try it. The install routine will alert you early in the process if it isn't compatible with the hardware. If it doesn't like what it sees, switch to the 32-bit image.

For several years my primary OS has been Linux Mint with the Cinnamon desktop. Before that I was an OS s1ut. I spent quality time with Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Fedora, Slackware, and SuSE, which all had their strengths but I wasn't bowled over by any of them. In the olden days most desktops were based either on KDE or GNOME. I was a KDE guy but over time KDE had evolved into something unrecognizable, much the same as Micro$loth did with everything following WinXP. Eventually Mint with the Cinnamon desktop was spun off from Ubuntu and in Cinnamon I finally found a suitable replacement for KDE. IMHO Cinnamon is more straightforward, more intuitive than anything M$ has called a desktop since XP.

Also for several years the two most widely used flavors of Linux (excluding Android, which is Linux but isn't a desktop OS) have been Mint and Ubuntu, with the two of them swapping between #1 and #2 for quite a while. Mint and Ubuntu are half-sisters (both are forks of Debian) and I have yet to come across either an application or a 'fix' that was written for Ubuntu that didn't also work on Mint.

The fact that they are so widely used is especially important because your best resource for free support is the Linux community. So the more people are who are using the same distro as you, the more likely it is that there will be someone who has had the same problem you are experiencing and knows how to fix it.

I have extensive notes on how to 'tweak' Mint to my liking, everything from designating a DNS server that G**gle doesn't control to making the command line prompt more useful.

And you shouldn't be fearful of command line. The advertising clowns who sold PC users on the idea that Windows doesn't need command line must be the same guys who sold the Army on the idea that the M-16 rifle never needs cleaning. Both are a load of hooey, and Micro$loth knows this, as evidenced by their endless/fruitless search for a better command line interface. They finally threw in the towel and now you can run the Bourne-Again Shell (BaSH), which was written expressly for Linux and now is the default command shell on most Linux distros. But it's available from M$ for Win10. People who think they are fluent in Windows but have avoided learning command line are only kidding themselves. And Linux's command line is vastly more useful than M$'s. Like Windows, you can get by without it, but you're missing out on a lot of functionality, particularly in the tweaking and customizing department.

A little command line skill goes a long way, and I've been keeping notes for years on any command I can't remember off the top of my head and had to take the time to look up. One thing command line (which is called "terminal window" in the *NIX world) makes loads easier ias executing a whole bunch of commands, all in sequence all in on fell swoop, as opposed to clicking through a GUI to make the change 20 different times.

One thing you might find offputting but that is defining characteristic of the entire Linux world is the 'cutesy' naming conventions. This is something that goes all the way back to UNIX, which is the mother to all Linuxes. UNIX was created to replace an older OS called Multics, which was the acronym for "Multiplexed Information and Computing Service." UNIX stood for "Uniplexed Information and Computing Service," which was a geek play on words, taking a potshot at the naming of Multics.

This 'plafyulness' trickled down into the Linux world, beginning with Linus Torvalds choosing a penguin as the official Linux logo. Because penguins are comical critters and no one has a bad impression of them.

Richard Stallman's work was key to the success of Linux because Torvalds only wrote the OS, he didn't create any applications to run on it. So that's what Stallman did. He founded an organization he called the GNU Project to write applications to run on Linux (and without which Linux would have been pretty useless). So a lot of people (including Stallman, naturally) think it should be called GNU/Linux.

The initials GNU, BTW, stand for "GNU's Not UNIX," another quirky play on words. And to make matters worse, the "G" in GNU is not silent. It's pronounced guh-NOO. And as it happens, the GNU Project created GNOME so GNOME is pronounced guh-NOME.

On the KDE side of things, they do something similar. KDE has a file manager called (phoenetically) 'commander' but since commander starts with a hard 'C,' they spell it with a 'K.' Kommander. So all applications for KDE that start with a hard 'C' sound gets its 'C' replaced with a 'K.'

Which might sound childish, but that how Linux rolls.
 
  #15  
Old 03-23-19, 05:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 489
Likes Received: 6
Always thought about trying Linux but after reading this my head is spinning. Is it really that easy to adapt from Windose for the average user?
 
  #16  
Old 03-23-19, 06:14 PM
kolias's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,285
Ron53 if you want an OS just for email, browsing the Web and writing a few letters any Linux based OS will be just easy, free and perfect.

On the other hand I always want to mess with the OS and always try to find things to screw up the system so I can spend time afterwards to fix it and last night after installing Chalet somehow I press the wrong button and I logged out but could not log in for some reason (although I knew my password) so today I had to remove Chalet which meant I had to format my C:\ partition. Luckily I have a beautiful back up program (Macrium Reflect) which did most of the job including replacing the original MBR.

Fred I agree with you but my desktop is x86 because trying to install some 64bit programs I get the message I do the wrong thing. Back in the late 80’s during the glory of DOS I learn the basics of the command line and even took a course in Basic. I must say that knowledge proves to be quite handy even today when I get stuck and have to use the CMD prompt to save me.

My opinion, Linux is an excellent choice for the average user especially with all the different Linux flavors you have around but I’m not an average user and I find Linux to complex including a GUI which is not to my liking.

For now I have put a few Linux downloads in my Windows 8.1 laptop where I have VMWare player and thus I can play with them when I have the time..
 
  #17  
Old 03-24-19, 06:15 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,938
All that tells you is that you have 32-bit Windows installed, not that you have 64-bit hardware.
That ‘s not correct. The “X-86 Based PC “ statement tells you that you DO NOT have 64 bit hardware. If you had 64-bit hardware it would say “X64”. X-86 means you have 32 bit hardware.
 
  #18  
Old 03-24-19, 08:24 AM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 489
Likes Received: 6
Ron53 if you want an OS just for email, browsing the Web and writing a few letters any Linux based OS will be just easy, free and perfect.
Sounds like a good idea since Win7 support is stopping in 2020 and I wouldn't touch Win10 with a 10ft pole.
 
  #19  
Old 03-25-19, 09:28 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 406
Likes Received: 5
Fred_C_Dobbs:
All that tells you is that you have 32-bit Windows installed, not that you have 64-bit hardware.
zoesdad:
That ‘s not correct. The “X-86 Based PC “ statement tells you that you DO NOT have 64 bit hardware. If you had 64-bit hardware it would say “X64”. X-86 means you have 32 bit hardware.
That was a typo, and for whatever reason the forum would not let me edit that post. What I meant to write was that all it's telling you is the OS is 32-bit architecture, not that the CPU is 32-bit.

FWIW, Intel is of the opinion that the Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6850 CPU is 64-bit.




IMHO if you'd never used Windows before, it would be as easy to start on Linux as on Windows. Even though M$ throws the baby out with the bathwater with each new Windows version, and the user interface changes (sometimes radically) from one to the next, there still is some commonality.
 
  #20  
Old 03-25-19, 12:09 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,938
Well I guess if Intel says it’s 64-bit then it’s 64 bit. It’s been years since I has Vista but I thought if you see “X-86 Based System” yes that means you are running 32 bit Windows – but if in addition you DO NOT see something that say “X64” or “64 bit capable= Yes” , or something like that - then it is not 64 bit capable. In other words “X-86 based system” by itself, without any additional reference to x64, implies 32 bit architecture. But maybe that’s my faulty memory or maybe misunderstanding. If so, my bad.

But…supposedly in Vista if you open the "System Properties" window and click the Advanced tab then click Environment Variables you can find a variable PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE and that should say x64.

I guess if you think about it, unless that computer is really old it should be 64-bit capable.
 
  #21  
Old 03-26-19, 10:40 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,938
Fred I agree with you but my desktop is x86 because trying to install some 64bit programs I get the message I do the wrong thing.
If you are running a 32-bit OS I think you will get those kinds of messages, because you need a 64-bit OS to run a 64-bit program. If you are in fact ever able to install a 64-bit OS those messages should go away.

I’m not an average user and I find Linux to complex
I would like to just say, that IMHO, that there is a reason why Linux has had , and for a long time, just a trivial share of the desktop market, while Windows has had the lion’s share. Windows is in another dimension in terms of user friendliness as compared to Linux. I badmouth Windows myself from time to time, (especially the update process, across all versions, that seems to have perpetual reliability problems), but I think you will find Windows is light years ahead of Linux in user friendliness.

I was a SW engineer for many years, and years ago I had a project where I installed SCO Unix on a small network of PCs, and wrote tons of C code to run on those platforms. It was mission critical system used in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the Pentagon. The system, including all final software, had to be thoroughly analyzed and blessed by the NSA before the system was allowed to go operational. The NSA considered the SCO Unix OS core a “trusted” system, so that’s why we used SCO Unix.

So I have some experience with Unix type systems – and at home I even installed Linux myself at one time to give it a look see. You will have to learn more details of the underlying system to do some standard things if you use Linux. For example, if you want to install the latest device driver, it won’t be as simple and clicking on an “Update Driver” button as you do in Windows or going to a manufacturer’s web site and clicking a Download button. You will have to learn about device directories, where different types of device files must be stored, configuration files and commands to install the devices drivers on startup, etc. Windows insulates you from that level of detail. That’s just one example.

You can learn about these things but unless you are really interested in getting into that detail I think it may just be frustrating. It seems to me Linux on the desktop is really for hobbyists. What I saw, and I could be wrong, was the help forums out there for Linux expect you to know a lot about the details already. There is no patience for people who have no understanding of the basic Unix system. In other words, these people are serious hobbyists. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression. My guess would be that there are a lot of people out there who have tried Linux for the desktop – and don’t like it, and that’s why the Linux desktop market share can’t crack 2%.

Anyway, it sure wouldn’t hurt to try Linux, it’s free and maybe you in fact would like it.
Just my 2 cents!
 
  #22  
Old 03-28-19, 01:56 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,452
Likes Received: 12
Thank you zoesdad for the comment that Linux is light years behind Windows for user interface ease of use. I love what computers can do but I am NOT on friendly terms with any computer.

Before I retired, about fifteen years ago) I was seriously involved in creating a distributed data gathering network so I am not unfamiliar with software but I found out then that while I had no trouble in designing or using hardware the software was almost impossible for me. Things have not gotten any better with age.

I'm still using XP, mostly because I don't have any need for anything more powerful and I don't want to have to replace all my hardware (printers, etc.) as what I have does everything I need to do. I have NO desire to learn another operating system and I have NO desire to replace hardware that works for my needs. Add in that as a retiree I don't have gobs and gobs of money.

Several years ago I wanted to try Linux. I tried to download Ubunto but every site I found seemed to be on a time-share basis and it was taking literally HOURS (I once tried for six hours) to download even with a fiber optic connection. I tried this several different times at several different sites with the same (non) results. I often read on this forum various "fixes" and "patches" for current OS problems and I might as well be reading something written in Klingon as I have absolutely no idea of what the author is trying to convey.

I wanted a SIMPLE version of Linux so I could continue to use my admittedly old hardware in a manner that was familiar to me but alas, it seems that such simply does not exist. Not everyone is a "power user" or "gamer" and I suspect that a fairly large segment of the population is like me, just needing a computer for simple E-mail, connecting to a personal bank account and simple word processing along with some on-line shopping.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes