Linux Won't Work On Systems Running Windows 8?

Ashbringer said:
That's why most of everything you use runs linux. Your router, most phones, and lets not forget most* of the internet. The games you play online connect to those linux servers, and lets not forget our favorite search engine, Google.

There are a lot of instances where Ubuntu will outperform Windows 7. It boots way faster, and has loads of hardware support. Some OpenGL Windows games run faster in Wine under Ubuntu, then they do in Windows 7. Though, the same can't be said about Direct 3D, which uses a wrapper to run those games. Which puts a huge strain on the system.

Linux doesn't have the support that Windows gets with its graphics drivers. They're buggy, behind the Windows version, and behind linux innovations. Though that maybe why there's a lot of effort in getting fast Open Source drivers, which currently only do at best 1/10th the performance of ATI and Nvidia drivers.
Click to expand...

Linux as a kernel might be solid, but your router, phones, server equipment, etc are all commercial products that are tailored for a specific purpose.

Operating systems built on linux however covers a much larger scope and are severely lacking in polish. I attend a tech school where 99% of the students have worked with Linux. While it certainly has it's uses in academia and some other fields, it's frustrating watching someone use it as their main OS. There are way too many issues if you're trying to optimize day-to-day productivity, and open source 'software alternatives' almost always fail to go head to head with their commercial (industry standard) counterparts.
 
Just when I was starting to miss those stories and threads about Vista that were citing that ridiculous Auckland paper. I love how everyone is running with this and deciding that Microsoft is going to lock up everything from Grandma's Gateway to beefy servers to run Windows and only Windows. They're missing the point.

This is just the next logical step in the security effort that includes things like TPM. The place you're most likely going to see something like this enabled or offered as an option is on laptops marketed to large enterprises - which are becoming increasingly security conscious after horror stories about stolen laptops with customer data. They're not going to put it on low-cost consumer PCs - because it's a feature that they want to upsell you on! The people that know what it is and want it will pay extra for it, and those who don't know what it is won't miss it - just like TPM on laptops today.

The other similarity between this and TPM on laptops today is that it's likely not going to be enabled by default. When certain people read whitepapers on TPM, they became convinced that The Man was going to use it to track everyone everywhere on the internet and bring about an end to privacy. The reality is that it's yet another feature offered on expensive enterprise laptops that's available if your sysadmin wants to use it, and enables further cool features like BitLocker.

I could also see it on ARM tablets like one other poster suggested, but I don't see how this should be surprising - when's the last time a top tier manufacturer released an Android tablet or smartphone that you didn't have to crack first to get your own OS loaded?

I enjoy using Linux and recognize that it has its uses, but some of the more overzealous users tend to give the platform a bad name. Not every technology Microsoft uses is designed to create a future in which you can't compile your own kernel.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
There's a lot of *nix hate in this thread. That 90% chunk of users must all be gamers, cause really outside of that there's nothing you can do with windows that you can't do in some way with osx or a linux distro. I know if I did not game I would use Linux on my main workstation. Anything I could remotely need with Windows could be handled by VM.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. I use Windows because I game, but otherwise I'd run Fedora as my main OS. I know engineering is more diversified, but simply put, if you want to do any hard science research, you use Unix. Our IT department has a Mac or nothing policy (and they are too expensive), so I'm forced to use a Windows PC with Cygwin to get log onto my computing servers. It works, but I'd trade it for a native Linux boot any day.
 
A secure boot you can't modify via software (virus) is a safer boot, but I'd prefer if it came with a hardware option to disable the feature or reset the keys or something.
Maybe it's time to ditch the Windows logo, I hate to remove all these stickers every time I buy a computer... ^-^
 
Exavior said:
How? This is the FUCKING OEM not microsoft. Microsoft doesn't make hardware, they don't make bios, they don't make the motherboard they don't make any of that. They ask for feature X to be possible. IF THE FUCKING OEM decide to make it so that on is the only possible option, this features is possible already, nobdy is forcing you to lock it on only. But this article is bitching about how they only think OEMs will give you the option of on an no other option. That isn't Microsoft's fault if that happens.
Click to expand...

Microsoft requiring Secure Boot for Windows 8 certification has nothing to do with Microsoft?

Naw, it won't be at all Microsoft's fault when Secure Boot is poorly implemented by some OEMs. It won't be Microsoft's fault even if MS does some anti-competitive leaning on OEMs to implement Secure Boot in a less than friendly manner.

MS doesn't make hardware, but they'd like to lock-down the hardware like Xbox or a Windows Phone is locked own.
 
Stone Cold said:
Microsoft requiring Secure Boot for Windows 8 certification has nothing to do with Microsoft?

Naw, it won't be at all Microsoft's fault when Secure Boot is poorly implemented by some OEMs. It won't be Microsoft's fault even if MS does some anti-competitive leaning on OEMs to implement Secure Boot in a less than friendly manner.

MS doesn't make hardware, but they'd like to lock-down the hardware like Xbox or a Windows Phone is locked own.
Click to expand...

Requing it be possible to turn on and forcing it to be on 100% of the time are two completely different things. Some computers have that feature now, you can turn it off. Those meet the requirement for what they are asking. You and the asshole who wrote the article are assuming OEMs are going to go the least feature route and say fuck it we don't want to add the 1 option to turn this off or on and will just make it on 100% of the time. Nobody is doing it now for this feature, nobody has said that they will do it. But you guys are all assuming that will start happening just because.

Then you over look how Linux can include keys themselves and run on there just fine. So the only reason there is a problem then is because OEMs get lazy and then the linux devs get lazy. So if everyone in the world gets really really lazy then yes linux will not work on dell and hp computers in 2 years because every OEM will suddenly decide they have been spending too much time giving you that 1 option and need to take it away.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
They're not going to put it on low-cost consumer PCs - because it's a feature that they want to upsell you on!
Click to expand...
Actually I stand corrected. They're putting it in as a requirement to get log certified. Color me surprised.

The presentation he linked wasn't clear on whether it would need to be enabled by default. But I simply can't see Microsoft forcing OEMs to ship ALL PCs configured in such a way that installing another OS is impossible. On the other hand, I don't see a way they can release the required keys into the wild without shooting themselves in the foot as far as defeating rootkits goes. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
Exavior said:
Then you over look how Linux can include keys themselves and run on there just fine.
Click to expand...
I'm sure some of the distributions that are distributed in a binary format can sign their kernels or bootloaders, but that would either break source distributions (because the keys won't be distributed, and you can't sign the kernel/bootloader yourself) or the whole point behind this security feature (rootkit builders can just sign their malware with freely available keys).

Plus the article talks about how GPLv3 is written in such a way that distributing signed binaries would be a violation of the license if they didn't distribute the keys. That's just fantastic. Kind of sad how an open-source license ends up being too restrictive.
 
WAY OT, but I'll bite:

Every January, I give Linux a try. Always the new version of Ubuntu, since that is, by now, the defacto representative of the OS to the consuming public (as opposed to the business/expert public). Often I'll try something a little more cutting edge, like Moblin, last year, or this year with arch linux.
I always have the same issues:

1- Some piece of hardware (usually the wireless card) will not install. At least without some kind of wrapper, and CLI mucking.
2- I usually give up here. If I have to screw around with the command line, the OS has failed. Period. This is 2011, almost 2012. WE live in a GUI world. If the OS hasn't gotten there, it immediately fails.
3- Fonts. Something about the font smoothing has always bothered me, and I can't figure out what it is. Just not as clear as Win.
4- Community- Often touted as the REASON to switch (no more calling the mid east), it's hell. Pure and simple. Either your question goes unanswered, you get a response ful of crazy, oblique technical language meant for comp sci majors (dl this and compile it :FAIL:), or some snarky comment from a neckbeard in a basement somewhere with a superiority complex.
5- Insane amounts of updates- I don't want to see the update manager getting app/package updates every time I boot. If there are that many updates (which is fine, I guess), don't show me all of them. Just the really important ones that might change the way an app or my OS will work.

The exception was Moblin. I put that thing on my old Acer Aspire One last Janurary (2010) and it ran out of the box awesome. Sure, there were no apps, but the ones it came with were spiffy, snappy and cool. Too bad...

As for Win8, if it does limit OS installs other than Windows (at least on x86), I'd say, who cares. All .5% f he world that uses desktop linux will throw a hissy fit, but Joe he plumber will never notice.
 
I use to dual boot, but now I just use VM. With so many cores and ram, why not
 
TheBlueChanell said:
There's a lot of *nix hate in this thread. That 90% chunk of users must all be gamers, cause really outside of that there's nothing you can do with windows that you can't do in some way with osx or a linux distro. I know if I did not game I would use Linux on my main workstation. Anything I could remotely need with Windows could be handled by VM.

The biggest problem with Linux on the desktop (for the everyman) is application support, there's just not a lot of shit for it and the same issue applies with OSX. That pretty much gives the cold shoulder to the enterprise market. I think Linux could be HUGE in the public sector due to no licensing costs but most places billing / management software is Win exclusive.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things, not to mention poor usability, but one major one is wmc dvr with cablecard... can't do that on linux, or extend it to a 360.
 
Im guessing its a protection from the current running around loaders for cracking windows activation. just my guess. honestly though I don't dual boot nowadays, I virtualize linux
 
Jesse B said:
Wanting something stable, reliable, virus free, etc. is obviously not an excuse. On top of that, the fact that this alternative happens to be free makes me cheap. It's amazing how much I learn about myself every day.
Click to expand...

I thought *nix users were too smart to catch Mac Security Obscurity Syndrome. I guess I was wrong.

*free - you have a nerd friend for support
*free - real world: install is free. Support contract with IBM for your IT and enterprise: not so free. Don't forget retraining all your office drones. Totally free. Right?
 
Exavior said:
Requing it be possible to turn on and forcing it to be on 100% of the time are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Secure Boot will be enabled by default.

I don't assume that every OEM is going to go the least-features route, but I expect some to go with few features or to make it difficult to turn off Secure Boot. Microsoft would like it to be impossible to turn off (ala Windows phones and Xbox).

The natural result is that life will be more difficult for people who fix computers by trade (or by friends/family). And, a number of people who try Linux for the first time will conclude that their computer is incomparable with Linux because they get an error message that is cryptic and scary to them.

It would be real nice if you try to boot to Linux and you simply get a dialogue, "Unsigned OS: Continue or Abort?". I don't assume that all OEMs will be that reasonable.

And, for what? I've never even heard of a virus operating system (I don't mean an infected MBR).

Then you over look how Linux can include keys themselves and run on there just fine.
Click to expand...

If Linux could get keys, then Secure Boot wouldn't be secure.
 
GoldenTiger said:
There are a lot of things, not to mention poor usability, but one major one is wmc dvr with cablecard... can't do that on linux, or extend it to a 360.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand the poor usability part. Im also sure you could probably find an apt package, if applicable, that could get the DVR working.

One of the greatest things about Linux is the power of bash, i dont get those hating on it. Even today it complements the gui very well, I find myself doing most of my work via ssh. Your average user can get around ubuntu without ever needing to open terminal, same as 95% of your Mac users who don't know it's there.

The reason most forums will send you into bash is because it's the quickest most efficient way of getting an issue resolved. The same could be said for run in windows, I do pretty much everything out of it.
 
So microsoft is removing other OS? :eek: This might be a boost to non OEM computer makers (well if there are any linux users who don't know how to peice together a load of easy to assemble components, and need someone to do it... Might be more troublesome on laptops however...)

Stone Cold said:
If Linux could get keys, then Secure Boot wouldn't be secure.
Click to expand...

Redhat linux isn't free? Pretty sure they could get keys if they wanted.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
There's a lot of *nix hate in this thread. That 90% chunk of users must all be gamers, cause really outside of that there's nothing you can do with windows that you can't do in some way with osx or a linux distro. I know if I did not game I would use Linux on my main workstation. Anything I could remotely need with Windows could be handled by VM.
Click to expand...

And the same thing can be said vice versa? What can't you do on Windows 7/8 with a Linux VM?

TheBlueChanell said:
The biggest problem with Linux on the desktop (for the everyman) is application support, there's just not a lot of shit for it and the same issue applies with OSX. That pretty much gives the cold shoulder to the enterprise market. I think Linux could be HUGE in the public sector due to no licensing costs but most places billing / management software is Win exclusive.
Click to expand...

Linux is definitely not free. Let's ignore the desktop space and pretend that all the office workers can use Linux and all your applications have a Linux version. In the server space, the end-users generally require support contracts. RHEL and SuSE support packages are more expensive than Windows.
 
I hope this means that every pc that's win8 certified comes with a TPM. I love my TPM in my desktop and wish every computer had one, especially servers. Only trusted and signed code can boot, and throw on bitlocker with a TPM and nobody can access data without a valid windows login and you can't bypass it even with a signed boot disk because the HD is still encrypted, meaning lost/stolen machines are useless for stealing data and rootkits can no longer boot? Yes please I'll take 2.
 
Ohh no! My Grandmother's next store bought computer won't run Linux distros? She'll be so disappointed, she might even ask what Linux is should she ever read this article and find out her computer doesn't run Linux.

Honestly, most people that would go to best-buy and buy a pre-built HP out of a box pc probably aren't a market Linux distrubtors would be able to tap into from the beginning...
 
kcmastrpc said:
20 years later and the linux vs. windows debate still rages on.
Click to expand...

There is no debate , Linux has been kicking windows ass for a good few years now. Windows is relegated to an attempt at a Games Operating System with ability to burn cd/dvd from the OS.
 
WBurchnall said:
Ohh no! My Grandmother's next store bought computer won't run Linux distros? She'll be so disappointed, she might even ask what Linux is should she ever read this article and find out her computer doesn't run Linux.

Honestly, most people that would go to best-buy and buy a pre-built HP out of a box pc probably aren't a market Linux distrubtors would be able to tap into from the beginning...
Click to expand...

Well i can see that something like EU would block such devices from entering Europe for the simple matter that it would certify the monopoly position MS has.
 
Ashbringer said:
Linux currently is in no shape for end users just yet.
Click to expand...

Except for when those end users happen to be Android, WebOS, TiVO, Cisco, WholeHog, Animation studios like IL&M and Weta, etc... Point blank, Linux won. It, as a foundation, is on more servers, devices and products than every other OS and UI combined, save for maybe Symbian and Nokia's candybar phones. Where Linux excels in every single one of those uses is because it's largely used as a dedicated purpose system. A phone. A tablet. A DVR. A router. A lighting setup. CGI.

Desktop? A desktop is something that tries to do everything and everything at the same time... but poorly.

Quite frankly, all the resources used in trying to get Linux on the desktop would be better off put towards getting Microsoft to fuck off once and for all about patents and defending Android from Apple.
 
Linux on the desktop was fun in 1998.

It's found a home in mobile devices and should continue to move in that direction.
 
Anways, back on topic ... so much for popping in a CD with MemTest86+ to test hardware? What happens when the Win8 installation is corrupted and won't boot ... buy a new machine? I suppose Win8 installation DVDs will be signed -- for purchase separately, of course.
 
xorbe said:
Anways, back on topic ... so much for popping in a CD with MemTest86+ to test hardware? What happens when the Win8 installation is corrupted and won't boot ... buy a new machine? I suppose Win8 installation DVDs will be signed -- for purchase separately, of course.
Click to expand...

That was something that was covered and which again everyone is overlooking just to bitch about linux not running. You can't install a box copy of an OS on there as it wouldn't have the key. You can't upgrade the OS as it wouldn't have the key. You can't replace hardware as it wouldn't have a key.
 
kmoed said:
Linux on the desktop was fun in 1998.

It's found a home in mobile devices and should continue to move in that direction.
Click to expand...

This.

I personally have been a linux user for at least 15 years, I still use it everyday in the Enterprise as a Systems/Network admin. I personally LOL at the notion of it being used for end-user desktops in the home or in the enterprise. I'll keep it on my backend infrastructure, LAMP, etc. But keep it away from my intranet and end-users desktops/software.
 
Stone Cold said:
Secure Boot will be enabled by default.
Click to expand...
Source on this? The article cited a PowerPoint presentation, which wasn't 100% clear on whether machines had to ship with it enabled or just with support.

QUOTE=Stone Cold;1037782394]I don't assume that every OEM is going to go the least-features route, but I expect some to go with few features or to make it difficult to turn off Secure Boot. Microsoft would like it to be impossible to turn off (ala Windows phones and Xbox).[/quote]The PC is a different market than either of those. Microsoft releases tools that work on Linux for crying out loud. The people that work at Microsoft are developers and power users too. There will be a way around this.

QUOTE=Stone Cold;1037782394]And, for what? I've never even heard of a virus operating system (I don't mean an infected MBR).[/quote]All your files are behind a password in Windows. But I can get to them by popping in a Linux livecd. I think it'd be a good idea to prevent Linux boots if the user wants to.
 
dexvx said:
And the same thing can be said vice versa? What can't you do on Windows 7/8 with a Linux VM?

Run a firewall script for one. Freely and easily crack a zip file. Update all the apps I use at once with a single command.

These are just a few things that apply to me personally. I'm sure others could come up with much more, and much better examples.


Linux is definitely not free. Let's ignore the desktop space and pretend that all the office workers can use Linux and all your applications have a Linux version. In the server space, the end-users generally require support contracts. RHEL and SuSE support packages are more expensive than Windows.
Click to expand...

That's kind of subjective. Yes suse and redhat offer support contracts but that does not mean you have to use them. Somebody who knows Linux could use ubuntu server tailor it for a specific role and would never have to call support.

Linux CAN be expensive but show me a service contract at the Enterprise Level that isn't expensive, and most of the time paying the Service Contract is cheaper than calling that same company in without one. If you have a contract it's free, if not $500 to walk in the door and you go from there.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
There is no debate , Linux has been kicking windows ass for a good few years now. Windows is relegated to an attempt at a Games Operating System with ability to burn cd/dvd from the OS.
Click to expand...

I disagree especially from an enterprise perspective. I lead a team of engineers supporting roughly 4000 windows servers and 99 percent of the time I never have an issue. IIS runs fine, along with MS SQL server and other things.

Windows server 2008 R2 as well as Server 2003 R2 have come a long way since the days of NT and Server 2000 and are extremely stable and perform very well when properly maintained.

When things go bad for Windows (or any OS I might add) is when proper configuration management is not followed. I can't tell you how many times I have seen something break because someone either makes an unauthorized change or fails to fully understand what a planned change is going to do.

With all that being said, there are quite a number of things that windows can't do that Linux is very good at. The embedded device area is certainly one as well as bare metal virtualization.

XEN and VMware have the bare metal hypervisor locked right now with Hyper-v slowly bringing up the rear. Although with the release of Server 8 I would expect that to change slightly.

As for the embedded market, I don't think we are going to see that change anytime soon as embedded windows will never really work on consumer routers or anything else like that for a while.

Again though this is just my opinion...
 
Pieter3dnow said:
There is no debate , Linux has been kicking windows ass for a good few years now. Windows is relegated to an attempt at a Games Operating System with ability to burn cd/dvd from the OS.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to define "Kicking ass," since your usage clearly does not fit in any of the definitions I know...
 
techrat said:
Except for when those end users happen to be Android, WebOS, TiVO, Cisco, WholeHog, Animation studios like IL&M and Weta, etc... Point blank, Linux won. It, as a foundation, is on more servers, devices and products than every other OS and UI combined, save for maybe Symbian and Nokia's candybar phones. Where Linux excels in every single one of those uses is because it's largely used as a dedicated purpose system. A phone. A tablet. A DVR. A router. A lighting setup. CGI.

Desktop? A desktop is something that tries to do everything and everything at the same time... but poorly.

Quite frankly, all the resources used in trying to get Linux on the desktop would be better off put towards getting Microsoft to fuck off once and for all about patents and defending Android from Apple.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is Linux has found its niche on less functional devices? My dumb trolling aside, the things you listed are a good example of what happens when private companies take the Linux kernel and build a better product based on it.
 
pingjockey said:
I disagree especially from an enterprise perspective. I lead a team of engineers supporting roughly 4000 windows servers and 99 percent of the time I never have an issue. IIS runs fine, along with MS SQL server and other things.

Windows server 2008 R2 as well as Server 2003 R2 have come a long way since the days of NT and Server 2000 and are extremely stable and perform very well when properly maintained....
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that though I'm less enthusiastic about 2003 R2. WinServer does have it's place in the Enterprise Ecosystem. There's absolutely no OpenSource alternative to GPMC.

Managing PC's running Windows 7 using WinServer 2008 is an absolute breeze and they both are actually incredibly secure platforms.
 
chinesepiratefood said:
So what you are saying is Linux has found its niche on less functional devices? My dumb trolling aside, the things you listed are a good example of what happens when private companies take the Linux kernel and build a better product based on it.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna get berated for this but I actually hate Android. I was a huge proprietor of it in it's infancy but for me, looking at a finished product running WP7, iOS, webOS or Android. Android will take the back seat, nothing about it feels complete or seamless. Not to mention every Android phone I've used besides a nexus one and my girlfriends Incredible look and perform like shit. Every Droid I've used suffers from a sluggish UI.

I am excited to see where Google takes it this next year, it has the ability to be amazing but for me it still seems like it falls up short.

I get the Appeal of rolling or loading a custom rom and that's not something I have any experience with but from what I've seen out Android's retail offerings I've not been impressed. I'd much rather have iOS/WP7 and to a lesser extent (unfortunately) webOS.
 
techrat said:
Except for when those end users happen to be Android, WebOS, TiVO, Cisco, WholeHog, Animation studios like IL&M and Weta, etc... Point blank, Linux won. It, as a foundation, is on more servers, devices and products than every other OS and UI combined, save for maybe Symbian and Nokia's candybar phones. Where Linux excels in every single one of those uses is because it's largely used as a dedicated purpose system. A phone. A tablet. A DVR. A router. A lighting setup. CGI.

Desktop? A desktop is something that tries to do everything and everything at the same time... but poorly.
Click to expand...

The difference between Android, WebOS compared to Ubuntu, Slackware is that desktop Linux has no standards. Nobody is enforcing anything, and no one professional is coding for it, beyond the kernel. Nobody big is directly behind desktop linux. This maybe because linux doesn't offer anything to corporations, or because they don't wanna piss off the big boys, like Microsoft or Apple.

Quite frankly, all the resources used in trying to get Linux on the desktop would be better off put towards getting Microsoft to fuck off once and for all about patents and defending Android from Apple.
Click to expand...
Thing is nobody has any real resources on linux. Anything beyond the kernel is just donations.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
I'm gonna get berated for this but I actually hate Android. I was a huge proprietor of it in it's infancy but for me, looking at a finished product running WP7, iOS, webOS or Android. Android will take the back seat, nothing about it feels complete or seamless. Not to mention every Android phone I've used besides a nexus one and my girlfriends Incredible look and perform like shit. Every Droid I've used suffers from a sluggish UI.
Click to expand...
I've used Android since the G1 and I've seen nothing about a sluggish UI. I've used iOS devices as well, but I can't see any real difference. The only thing that came up as slow to me was web browsing, which iOS devices beat Android hands down. That is, until I installed Dolphin HD.

Then again I had CM7 running on my old G1. My cousins Droid 2 is running CM7. My new Cliq 2 is running Gingerbread. I don't keep many phones stock. Not for more then a week anyway.
I get the Appeal of rolling or loading a custom rom and that's not something I have any experience with but from what I've seen out Android's retail offerings I've not been impressed. I'd much rather have iOS/WP7 and to a lesser extent (unfortunately) webOS.
Click to expand...
Well, I've used WIndows Mobile 5 - 6.5 and I can tell you that was a horrible OS. I can't stand iOS, mainly cause it's locked down and unlocking it is full of problems. I unlocked and jailbroke a friends iPhone 2G for him, and I had to do way more stuff then I would like too. Plus, every time Apple updates iOS, you're screwed. Lets not forget that iPhones didn't originally come with SMS, multi-tasking, and the ability to change the background picture. It took Apple this long to catch up to even Windows Mobile functionality.

WP7 lost most of Windows Mobile functionality. For the most part, it's behind iOS in terms of functionality. No one even cares enough to even try to hack the OS, let alone use it.

Android works. If you used Windows Mobile like me, then Android makes a nice transition away from it. The only problem is installing applications onto the SD card, that requires a bit of extra work. Something I didn't have to worry about in Windows Mobile. Plus, unlike WP7 or iOS, there's a huge community of rom cookers that make Android awesome. I got addicted to custom roms with Windows Mobile, and I don't wanna quit with Android.

The difference between a custom rom and a stock rom is that with a stock rom I get applications like Amazon Mp3, where I can buy songs, or GPS software that I don't need cause I have Google's navigator. That crap is removed in custom roms, and they give me useful stuff that I do like. A file explorer, to actually explore the files on my root. Always comes rooted. Always has a different launcher, like LauncherPro or ADW. Custom themes, and lots of tweaks.

Sorry I got lost there. Why does Android suck again? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top