Fedora vs Ubuntu vs other? For desktop

[Red Squirrel]

I'm almost due for a clean install, and given I'm running XP which is becoming dated by today's standards, I'm thinking of upgrading to something else. I would need to upgrade my machine if I wanted to go 7. It would run, but slower then XP runs now, so I would not gain anything. If I go with Linux then it will be faster and better then XP, without having to upgrade hardware.

I'm debating between Ubuntu and Fedora, but I'm open to other suggestions. I like Ubuntu as it's geared towards desktop use, but I also like Fedora because it has a lot of other apps out of the box, and I prefer RH based Linux distros. I know my way around Linux, but I want something where I don't need to use the console for silly things like changing the screen resolution. This is a workstation, not a server, so I want to minimize the need to edit config files all the time. Ubuntu seems attractive when it comes to this. "It just works" is really true. I set it up for my HTPC and it was a flawless easy experience.

The things I use my PC for:

- standard office uses, web surfing/email/ documents etc...
- Coding (I only use notepad++ I'm sure there's plenty of Linux alternatives)
- graphics (photoshop... this may be a hard one to let go, gimp is a POS compared to photoshop, maybe there is a better alternative?)
- Ultima Online (I'll probably have to run this in a VM, but it's a low graphic game, should be fine)
- Occasional video/sound editing

 

[tacosareveryyummy]

From what I understand, 7 runs pretty well on old hardware. It comes installed on many netbooks which are pretty weak hardware wise.

Ubuntu will work fine but so will Fedora. My understanding of Fedora is that you can't use restricted drivers like you can in Ubuntu. But that may only be an issue if you have an AMD video card.

 

[Joe Average]

Windows 7 runs fantastic on older hardware, seriously. It's a question of RAM more than anything else: if the old hardware only has 512MB to 1GB of RAM, it will in some instances hurt for it, but if it's got 1-2GB it'll be just fine. But, some folks just don't want to use Windows 7, and that's fine.

My recommendation would be one of two OSes at this exact moment:

Ubuntu 10.10, given that it's the most popular Linux distribution by a fairly significant margin overall. It has a huge community support forum over at the Ubuntu website, it's solid, it's "stable" (dare I say it, because most people don't really understand what that actually entails in the long run), and of course it's got a great deal of functionality built in right outta the box. And that's all I'm gonna say about that one.

Second up is a new Linux distro, fresh outta the box as of April 1st - and no, it's for real, it's not a joke (because of the date of release, that is). It's called elementaryOS and I grabbed it within the 1st hour of it being available and I find it to be very fast, very minimal, based on Ubuntu 10.10 itself but it's been "gutted" of a ton of bloat that Ubuntu 10.10 actually comes with (yes, Linux distros are getting more bloated by the day).

You can get elementaryOS here if you're interested in trying it out:

http://elementaryos.org

It's only 32 bit for now, with a 64 bit distro coming soon from what I've read. The website has effectively zero info - no support forums, no FAQs, nothing. It's only available by a torrent at this point, so be aware of that. I grabbed it in about 20 minutes (there's a lot of seeders on that thing), and I installed it not only in a virtual machine (VirtualBox 4) but I also wrote it to a USB stick using UNetbootin and then fired it up on my Dell Latitude D830 as a "LiveUSB" installation.

Man is it snappy...

It's worth checking out, and I'd say it's minimalism is a GREAT place to start by adding in just what you're interested in while maintaining a base of a fully functional Linux distro which itself is based on Ubuntu, just leaned out and stripped of (mostly) useless things.

 

[Cheetoz]

I know my way around Linux, but I want something where I don't need to use the console for silly things like changing the screen resolution. This is a workstation, not a server, so I want to minimize the need to edit config files all the time.

but thats what makes linux fun! For windows, you just install it and boom you're done. In linux, you get to tweak and tweak and tweak and tweak! I guess if one isn't a computer geek, its not fun lol.

 

[DSee]

Arch Linux

 

[illuminate]

Arch Linux

Couldn't have said it better myself. +1

 

[lightp2]

Most are sensible options, do note that for Linux

1. You state VM. If you want widely tested VM solutions, you need to drop back to Ubuntu, Fedora or Debian. Look at VMware Player and VirtualBox supported host platforms

Here the key is they are included for VM official supported host platforms.

You can also use KVM virtualization but the Windows VM guest drivers are perhaps not as smooth as VMware.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Was planing to use virtuabox. If i get a decently powerful machine I'd probably just leave the Windows VM on all the time. In fact if I can get seamless mode to work (that tends to be flaky even in vmware) I may even run my windows apps that way. Photoshop and UO are the main windows apps I can think of. I'm sure I can find alternatives for the rest.

I'm still eyeing win7 as well, but I love to make the move to Linux. Hard decision. I have nothing against Win7 from the little that I've played with it, it seems decent, after getting past the learning curve, which goes with anything.

 

[AltTabbins]

Couldn't have said it better myself. +1

Umm.. why? Arch Linux has a very difficult install, and uses the terminal for just about everything. In fact, when you first boot arch, you dont get get a gui.. you HAVE to know how to use the terminal.

 

[/dev/null]

Not sure why you guys want to use proprietary virtualization stuff when KVM+virtmanager is quite good.

I've been an ubuntu fan for about 4 years but with the way they are going with Unity coming up, I've already switched to Mint on my personal desktop. I like it ALOT better.

With that being said, I can't say much about win7 on older hardware (my only win7 box for gaming which I seem to only turn on about twice a month), but perhaps you want to snag a trial or something before giving up on it completely..?

Linux isn't a replacement for Windows. It's an alternative....things work differently.

 

[illuminate]

Umm.. why? Arch Linux has a very difficult install, and uses the terminal for just about everything. In fact, when you first boot arch, you dont get get a gui.. you HAVE to know how to use the terminal.

It's not that hard. It took me maybe 2-3 hours the first time I did it, and I learned more about Linux than I did the entire year before I had been using Ubuntu. It's not too hard, but it's not set and install, that's all

 

[Maranello]

I have an Atom 230 system I use for internet/email and syncing my iPods and my Garmin Foreunner 305 after runs (Intel D945GCLF board limited to 2GB). Win 7 runs just as fast on this system as XP. I have a 2GB thumb drive use use for ReadyBoost which bumped up the performance a little more.

For all out speed, the fastest distro I've used on that system has been Linux Mint XFCE.

 

[Drudenhaus]

I know my way around Linux, but I want something where I don't need to use the console for silly things like changing the screen resolution.

ATI and NVidia (see below) provide tools for doing that for you. Most desktop managers have something similar built in as well. If you go with something like Ubuntu or one of it's spinoffs (e.g. Mint), you shouldn't have to do much in the command line.

- standard office uses, web surfing/email/ documents etc...

Libreoffice/Openoffice works well for office docs as long as you don't need perfect Microsoft open xml format support (.docx and .pptx look pretty jumbled when opening in Libreoffice).

- Coding (I only use notepad++ I'm sure there's plenty of Linux alternatives)

There are numerous text editors with highlighting modes and various plugins for most languages (vi to gedit).

- graphics (photoshop... this may be a hard one to let go, gimp is a POS compared to photoshop, maybe there is a better alternative?)

I'm definitely not a graphics designer so GIMP more that I would ever need. Can't really comment if you need something more than GIMP.

- Ultima Online (I'll probably have to run this in a VM, but it's a low graphic game, should be fine)

Ultima will probably run in Wine without any issues.

- Occasional video/sound editing

Try Audacity for sound editing. Not sure on the video editing side (never done any video editing).


DSee, illuminate, suggesting Arch is like me suggesting Gentoo