Any Windows users NOT switching to 7 RC?

Q1: Windows 7 RC already

7 (9.3%)

Q1: Windows 7 beta

0 (0%)

Q1: Windows Server 2008

0 (0%)

Q1: Windows Vista

8 (10.7%)

Q1: Windows Server 2003

0 (0%)

Q1: Windows XP

9 (12%)

Q1: Windows 2000

0 (0%)

Q1: an older MS OS

1 (1.3%)

Q1: I touch nothing from Microsoft!

3 (4%)

Q2: tried it in beta

4 (5.3%)

Q2: tried it in RC

3 (4%)

Q2: will try RC soon

0 (0%)

Q2: will wait for final release

8 (10.7%)

Q2: will wait for SP1

3 (4%)

Q2: never!

6 (8%)

Q3: didn't try yet

11 (14.7%)

Q3: it was perfect

3 (4%)

Q3: it was OK, no complaints

4 (5.3%)

Q3: too ugly / poorly designed

0 (0%)

Q3: too slow / bloated

0 (0%)

Q3: software compatibility issues

0 (0%)

Q3: hardware compatibility issues

0 (0%)

Q3: not innovative / cool enough

1 (1.3%)

Q3: bad, other

4 (5.3%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[blackie]

I upgraded one of my systems to 2GB of RAM so I can try out Win 7 on it. I've also got Ubuntu 9.04. I just need to back up the HD, then install.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Linux didn't like my ATI graphics.  It looked like it was installed properly but it ran at like 50% or less performance than Windows.

For some reason, the ATI graphics drivers being released for Linux are dragging seriously behind the Windows drivers. The only people who know why are ATI, I'm in the same boat right now myself. Did you ask them?

No I didn't bother to ask them about it, and I didn't really care either.  I could perhaps understand running linux on a server or a low powered desktop, but not on my high end desktop.  It's really just not worth my time.  And it underutilizes one of my most expensive parts (my 4850 HD).

[BobRobertson]

I could perhaps understand running linux on a server or a low powered desktop, but not on my high end desktop.

I would say the same thing about Windows. After all, except for the games and esoteric business apps that are written such that they will only run on Windows (and therefore also endangered most by such revamps as XP-SP2 what a nightmare that was!) there's no reason to be spending scarce resources running Windows.

It's really just not worth my time.  And it underutilizes one of my most expensive parts (my 4850 HD).

Part of optimizing is knowing what hardware works best. Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

That's the beauty of a free market. Everyone has a choice.

I like minimizing the overhead of the OS so that the "high end" is available for apps. It's the same basic reasoning as on a low-end machine.

I guess it's like college. If all you're doing is partying, no need to be efficient.

[freeAgent]

I could perhaps understand running linux on a server or a low powered desktop, but not on my high end desktop.

I would say the same thing about Windows. After all, except for the games and esoteric business apps that are written such that they will only run on Windows (and therefore also endangered most by such revamps as XP-SP2 what a nightmare that was!) there's no reason to be spending scarce resources running Windows.

It's really just not worth my time.  And it underutilizes one of my most expensive parts (my 4850 HD).

Part of optimizing is knowing what hardware works best. Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

That's the beauty of a free market. Everyone has a choice.

I like minimizing the overhead of the OS so that the "high end" is available for apps. It's the same basic reasoning as on a low-end machine.

I guess it's like college. If all you're doing is partying, no need to be efficient.

Come on now.  I would say that Windows is also better for using the internet, since it's easier to find browser plugins for media, not to mention drivers to actually operate NICs.  It's also better for media because Linux doesn't support a lot of Dolby stuff.  Besides games, business apps, watching movies, and using the internet, I'm not sure what most home users are doing on their computers.

"Knowing what hardware works best" is a pretty silly argument.  Sure, if you choose Linux you have to be incredibly conscious of what hardware you're putting in your machine.  However, that is a limitation you face when running Linux, not Windows.  Windows will work with pretty much anything you throw at it, by comparison.  And it will work well unless the hardware is defective.  As far as speed goes, I've never noticed much difference between the two.

[Bill Brasky]

Besides games, business apps, watching movies, and using the internet, I'm not sure what most home users are doing on their computers.

I've been asking this for the last two years, and I can't get a solid answer.  It seems they're doing some very sophisticated, top secret shit which nobody will admit to. 

I'm currently running a java-based application with streaming data, including a little live TV window, I could run Azureus if I wasn't leaching, several windows open, and I'm peaking at about 18% CPU with normal performance ranging around 9%.  Windows itself isn't jittery at all.  I usually run like this for about a week, then have to reboot - only because it starts looking kinda choppy, it doesn't crash. 

My last machine handled this kind of use on XP, and it was about five years old. 

Someone, at some point, will bring up "Games!"  Get a friggin PS3

Jay was the only one who provided a genuine answer to the question, in another thread regarding Mac a while back.  He says Mac handles his digital recording better.  I could believe that, after all, its his recordings.  He should know.  Other than that, the Leet and Bones Society has not included me in their newsletter. 

[BobRobertson]

Come on now.  I would say that Windows is also better for using the internet, since it's easier to find browser plugins for media, not to mention drivers to actually operate NICs.  It's also better for media because Linux doesn't support a lot of Dolby stuff.

My experience is the exact opposite. The DRM that is being built into Windows means that I cannot play media on Windows that I can by not using Windows. I have DVDs I bought while living out of the country. If not for Linux, I could not view them because they're not Region-1.

And as far as browsing goes, it's Windows that has made it necessary for Google to warn people "This site may damage your computer!"

Yes, browser plug-ins for media are more available for Windows, but again that's not a "Windows" issue. 3rd party software producers are not writing their products for other platforms.

Besides games, business apps, watching movies, and using the internet, I'm not sure what most home users are doing on their computers.

Porn?

But seriously, it's which games, which business apps, what movies, what sites, etc. After all, what do YOU use it for?

"Knowing what hardware works best" is a pretty silly argument.  Sure, if you choose Linux you have to be incredibly conscious of what hardware you're putting in your machine.

No more than what one must go through when buying hardware to install anything other than the Windows that came on it.

A friend of mine, back in 2003, wanted to use Win2K on his new machine that came with WinXP. I honestly don't think he ever got everything working, tracking down drivers was very difficult since he couldn't get usable hardware version information out of either XP or 2K. So we used a Knoppix bootCD because Linux not only drove the hardware just fine, it reported the chipset/versions so he could find what was available for Win2K.

However, that is a limitation you face when running Linux, not Windows.  Windows will work with pretty much anything you throw at it, by comparison.  And it will work well unless the hardware is defective.

As my example above demonstrates, those are three false statements.

As far as speed goes, I've never noticed much difference between the two.

Isn't it wonderful you have that choice?

Windows itself isn't jittery at all.  I usually run like this for about a week, then have to reboot - only because it starts looking kinda choppy, it doesn't crash.

Yep, the Windows "therapeutic reboot". Had to do it on servers in many places I've worked too, not just desktop systems.

Desktops are actually less likely to need it, since they "usually" get turned off at night. So most folks don't see the slowly-getting-worse symptoms.

Someone, at some point, will bring up "Games!"  Get a friggin PS3

Already brought up, I assure you. It's usually number 1 in a Windows vs. EverythingElse discussion.

Jay was the only one who provided a genuine answer to the question, in another thread regarding Mac a while back.  He says Mac handles his digital recording better.  I could believe that, after all, its his recordings.  He should know.  Other than that, the Leet and Bones Society has not included me in their newsletter.

Macs are very, very well integrated. They'd better be, for the price! I used a Quadra when they were new, and that was a fun, fun, fun machine. Mac System 7 was a great operating system, too. Lots of overhead, true, but the developers used it for integration so things all looked the same and worked together. There certainly is a place for such integration, likely why I'm happy running KDE.

BTW, if you have any PowerPC Macs that seem to have been made obsolete by Apple's choice to go Wintel-hardware, Linux runs really well on those PowerPC. I remember the last time I installed it on a SPARC, it was amazing how much that "antiquated" hardware could do.

[Kevin Freeheart]

Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

That's the beauty of a free market. Everyone has a choice.

You keep failing, huh?

ATI's parent company, AMD, was sputtering in it's death throes. They reorganized by splitting their chip design and fabrication companies in two and TAKING A HEFTY SUM from... get this... the goverment of Dubai.

I don't call government-subsidized anything "free market". It also calls into question one of your other points:

Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

This has been happening for years. THey've NEVER provided decent drivers of Linux, and it's pretty obvious they have no plans to, having provided documentation to the Xorg developers to write their own damn drivers... that'll be here "any day now (tm)"

I guess it's like college. If all you're doing is partying, no need to be efficient.

I can see dismissing games (but even then, it's a difference in priorities, but not value) but you included "high end business apps". I will agree with you that FOSS apps can do about 99% of the things that proprietary, big ticket apps can. But if you've ever spent any time in a production environment in once of many industries, you'd see that the 1% it doesn't do is relevant to about 60% of work flow.

Case in point, the printing industry. GIMP couldn't handle CMYK for years and still can't handle LAB values for color. These are basic things in any printing shop slightly better than FedEx Office on training day. When you can toss out a single feature that rules out an entire industry, that's a glaring weakness, and ventures into the realm of "not partying". And believe me, with the overpriced apps that DO have these features, there's tons and tons of incentive to go with reliable, FOSS replacements. They simply don't exist.

I would say that Windows is also better for using the internet, since it's easier to find browser plugins for media

I'd say that installing VLC is about as easy on Windows as on Linux, so I think this is a tie, if not a slight advantage towards Linux. And unless you're referring to Windows 7, there's not even a comparison with NICs between Linux and Windows. XP and Vista don't find the intel ICH7 chipset which is used in almost every Intel board and has been out long enough that Vista could/should have installed it by default. Windows 7 even flawlessly detects and runs my Atheros9 wifi chipset but I've heard reports of people with pretty common hardware that didn't have a working NIC. NIC compat goes to Linux, hands down, IMO.

However, that is a limitation you face when running Linux, not Windows.  Windows will work with pretty much anything you throw at it, by comparison.  And it will work well unless the hardware is defective.  As far as speed goes, I've never noticed much difference between the two.

I've got a scanner at work that runs fine with Windows XP and Linux, but not with Vista. The reason for this is that it's a cheap Taiwanese company that replaced it with a slightly upgraded model and dropped support. They never released a 64-bit driver for it and it was incompatible in 32-bit mode. Linux had a SANE plugin and it works just fine on 32 and 64 bit distros.

Windows having better support is about as wrong as saying that "Linux does..". There's a lot of Windows on a lot of architectures and some fail pretty badly, worst than Linux. The variable is why it fails.

Anybody who thinks that it's acceptible NOT to be choosy about hardware is someone you do NOT want building you a computer. They don't know what the hell they're doing - operating system is irrelevant.

As far as speed goes, I've never noticed much difference between the two.

I've got to agree here with a caveat. Most well-featured distros (Ubuntu, Suse) are about as slow as Windows 7. Sure, you can get a blazing fast Linux PC if you wanna use Dillo as your browser and run twm with a console log in instead of a greeter... and after you rebuild world to optimize for your architecture's instruction set and eliminate unwanted use flags.

If flexibility matters, Linux wins. If desktop usability matters, you can expect a decently bloated system that will, for 99% of it's existence, be loading useless crap into memory so it's there the second you want it regardless of what OS you use.

The DRM that is being built into Windows means that I cannot play media on Windows that I can by not using Windows.

Still more fail.

Windows, being the most used OS by home users, is the most popular target for open source software development. VLC's various codecs install on Windows with a few clicks, and open damn near any file that a standard Linux repo's will handle.

If not for Linux, I could not view them because they're not Region-1.

libdvdcss was written by the VLC people, works on Windows and ignores region.

And as far as browsing goes, it's Windows that has made it necessary for Google to warn people "This site may damage your computer!"

Actually, I think that's the result of dumb ass people being on the internet. Those kinds of stupid features are gradually making their way into Linux as more and more "average people" start using it (try rm -rf / in bash... Your Linux system, on most distros, no longer does as you tell it to and will actually ignore your command! How's that for control?)

It's not even a root/non-root thing. Windows UAC is actually pretty decent on Vista and 7 in terms of isolating system changes from the user. The problem, even with Linux users, is that they can be convinced they WANT to give malicious application X permission to run as root/admin.

No OS can eliminate PEBKAC errors.

Yep, the Windows "therapeutic reboot". Had to do it on servers in many places I've worked too, not just desktop systems.

In fairness, this is an apples-to-oranges thing. On Linux, there's no "third party vendors" to blame, unless you happen to be running an nVidia driver or something. Windows itself it actually pretty damn stable. Every crash or BSOD I've had has come as a result of a crappy driver or dying hardware, not Windows itself. With WIndows, you run the risk of being hosed by crappy third party support. On Linux, you run the risk of NO third party support. Which way would you prefer to be screwed is the question, since there's no "unscrewed" unless you feel like writing your own drivers which well... isn't a typical use case. And if you DO, would you please write a functional equivalent for fglrx on Linux using an Radeon HD 3200 chipset? kthx.

There certainly is a place for such integration, likely why I'm happy running KDE.

Operating system integration has it's place and my shorts have orange icing crumbs on them from my breakfast. Like your above statement, the two aren't related in the SLIGHTEST. Unless you intended to imply that KDE is somehow integrated, in which I'd respond with "Amarok 2 and Kopete Interfaces" and you'd be unable to return a cogent retort. And to your non-cogent reply, I'll reference the fact that KDE fails to detect composite capability in many composite-ready chipsets, refuses to activate desktop effects and proceeds to crash more often that hijacked planes on 9/11.

BTW, if you have any PowerPC Macs that seem to have been made obsolete by Apple's choice to go Wintel-hardware, Linux runs really well on those PowerPC.

Until it eats your bootloader and doesn't know what the fuck to do with New World partitions. And if by "runs really well" you mean "allows you to tinker for hours before getting tired and going to bed, to retry the same thing the next morning until you realize you're late for work and go, leaving the problem to be 'solved' later that evening with a reinstall you creatively justify to yourself."

I remember the last time I installed it on a SPARC, it was amazing how much that "antiquated" hardware could do.

Yeah, it plays those new, fancy YouTube videos pretty well... oh, wait... YouTube isn't new. And oh, shit, SPARC doesn't have a Flash plugin. But it's okay, you can install swfdec or Gnash.

Which is great if the ONLY Flash you'll be watching is YouTube. And the videos you watch don't need reliable sound.

[Alex Libman 15]

One thing I'd like to add - you can't talk about the performance of a desktop operating system without talking about the performance of the available applications, and that's where Windows blows Linux away.  There's just far more good programmers writing apps for fame or profit, and focusing on an OS with >90% market share is obviously a good idea.

For example, I'm always frustrated by the absence of a good BitTorrent client in Linux: mldonkey is missing features, ktorrent and azureus are slow / buggy as hell, and there are two dozen other clients written in python that just don't cut it.  I couldn't get Ubuntu to juggle 100 torrents at once, much less also be able to play video at the same time - Windows 7 does all this and more.

Firefox and Opera run faster on Windows than Linux, and if you want to go even faster there's Safari and Chrome, and if you come across a site that requires IE then it's right there in its native environment.

[BobRobertson]

Kevin, I'm amazed. It's like you just aren't reading what I wrote.

Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

That's the beauty of a free market. Everyone has a choice.

You keep failing, huh?

No, this is ATI's failure. Or rather, as you point out, AMD's.

I don't call government-subsidized anything "free market". It also calls into question one of your other points:

Let ATI lose some margin over not providing good Linux drivers, they'll come around pretty quick.

This has been happening for years. THey've NEVER provided decent drivers of Linux, and it's pretty obvious they have no plans to, having provided documentation to the Xorg developers to write their own damn drivers... that'll be here "any day now (tm)"

And this "brings into question" what about my point that AMD deserves to lose customers because of not providing decent drivers?

As far as I can tell, all you're doing is pointing out that they deserve to lose customers.

I guess it's like college. If all you're doing is partying, no need to be efficient.

I can see dismissing games...

I am not dismissing games. I'm pointing out that one very good reason for using one OS and not another is applications that run on one OS and not another.

...but you included "high end business apps".

Yes. There are many specialized high end business apps that only run on Windows. That's a good reason to use Windows.

So again, I'm left wondering just why you object to my saying so, when all you do is repeat what I've already said?

And believe me, with the overpriced apps that DO have these features, there's tons and tons of incentive to go with reliable, FOSS replacements. They simply don't exist.

Exactly. One good reason for choosing one OS over another are applications that are written for one rather than the other.

That said, F/OSS continues to commoditize applications (graphics, office, Operating System) that used to be specialized and proprietary.

Either the software houses will adapt, by coming up with better or more specialized packages and selling them, or they will fail. Microsoft's clinging onto Windows is a perfect example of "grasping at straws", trying to hold onto a proprietary product whose niche has already become a commodity.

I'd say that installing VLC is about as easy on Windows as on Linux...

and

Windows, being the most used OS by home users, is the most popular target for open source software development. VLC's various codecs install on Windows with a few clicks, and open damn near any file that a standard Linux repo's will handle.

and

libdvdcss was written by the VLC people, works on Windows and ignores region.

All you're doing is reiterating that F/OSS can solve many problems that proprietary software does not solve. Something I'm trying to point out. So again, and again, all you're doing is disagreeing in order to agree with me.

Still more fail.

Not if you had read what I wrote. You're failing the reading test, that's obvious.

And as far as browsing goes, it's Windows that has made it necessary for Google to warn people "This site may damage your computer!"

Actually, I think that's the result of dumb ass people being on the internet.

Then I'm left to wonder how you rationalize that they are Windows-only vulnerabilities.

(try rm -rf / in bash... Your Linux system, on most distros, no longer does as you tell it to and will actually ignore your command! How's that for control?)

Control of what? Obviously, that's not a distribution I'm going to run.

No OS can eliminate PEBKAC errors.

Then why are you bringing it up?

Yep, the Windows "therapeutic reboot". Had to do it on servers in many places I've worked too, not just desktop systems.

In fairness, this is an apples-to-oranges thing. On Linux, there's no "third party vendors" to blame, unless you happen to be running an nVidia driver or something. Windows itself it actually pretty damn stable.

Indeed, if I install nothing else, and run no applications, Windows just sits there. Stable.

Maybe my comparison was not so obtuse after all. That is, assuming you read it.

On Linux, you run the risk of NO third party support. Which way would you prefer to be screwed is the question, since there's no "unscrewed" unless you feel like writing your own drivers which well... isn't a typical use case. And if you DO, would you please write a functional equivalent for fglrx on Linux using an Radeon HD 3200 chipset? kthx.

Didn't you just get done thrashing ATI/AMD for their practices, and now you're asking for a new driver for their video card? Please, which way do you want this? You say "fail" because I bring ATI up, now you bring ATI up.

There certainly is a place for such integration, likely why I'm happy running KDE.

Operating system integration has it's place and my shorts have orange icing crumbs on them from my breakfast.

Excuse me, you didn't read what I wrote again.

I was talking about SOFTWARE INTEGRATION of LOOK AND FEEL. Nothing what so ever to do with integration with the OS. KDE runs just fine on BSD, Linux, Solaris, I understand they're even porting it to Windows.

Like your above statement, the two aren't related in the SLIGHTEST.

That's because you're not reading what I wrote.

Unless you intended to imply that KDE is somehow integrated, in which I'd respond with "Amarok 2 and Kopete Interfaces" and you'd be unable to return a cogent retort. And to your non-cogent reply, I'll reference the fact that KDE fails to detect composite capability in many composite-ready chipsets, refuses to activate desktop effects and proceeds to crash more often that hijacked planes on 9/11.

All very relevant to KDE development. I was talking about look and feel, and I don't use Amarok 2 or Kopete. Gee, that looks like a cogent retort. Does this mean you "fail"?

And if by "runs really well" you mean...

No. I mean exactly what I said.

I remember the last time I installed it on a SPARC, it was amazing how much that "antiquated" hardware could do.

Yeah, it plays those new, fancy YouTube videos pretty well... oh, wait... YouTube isn't new. And oh, shit, SPARC doesn't have a Flash plugin. But it's okay, you can install swfdec or Gnash.

YouTube wasn't an issue, because I was working it as a web/email/ftp/ntp/dns/etc server. Something SPARC hardware has always lended itself to, since it tends to run, and run, and run...

I also don't sit there bitching about dual 50MHz CPUs not decoding YouTube videos well enough. Just like I wasn't talking about GUI integration into the OS.

This comes back again to choosing hardware AND software that fits ones needs and uses, and not blaming one for the failings of the other. You would understand that if you would read what I write.

[Kevin Freeheart]

I ask this in ALL seriousness, because I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally, to be difficult, or if you REALLY don't see that you're doing it. I was once a FOSS Fanboy (Google "Kevin Dean Linux" and Free Software is predominant among the hits) and I used sneaky shit like that too. I've since realized it's at the very heart of why Linux people do a piss poor job of selling Linux to others, because they manage to have long conversations, and not even talk about what the other person is.

In just about every instance, including some where I wrote WHY I dispute your claims, you identify the OTHER point, and use it as if I'm wrong. For example:

ATI's parent company, AMD, was sputtering in it's death throes. They reorganized by splitting their chip design and fabrication companies in two and TAKING A HEFTY SUM from... get this... the goverment of Dubai.

I don't call government-subsidized anything "free market".

This should be clear - my dispute is with the claim that AMD is engaged in free market competition. I then explained why. I then made the mental leap that, being subsidized by a government, they have LESS incentive to respond to market signals such as people boycotting their devices for lack of driver support.

As far as I can tell, all you're doing is pointing out that they deserve to lose customers.

I agree with this point, fully, but it wasn't the topic at hand.

Here's yet another example of where you do that subtle "shift":

All you're doing is reiterating that F/OSS can solve many problems that proprietary software does not solve.

I wasn't talking about FOSS vs non-FOSS and until I proved your wrong, neither were you. I was refuting your claim that you couldn't play certain media, and I quite "without Linux".

Then I'm left to wonder how you rationalize that they are Windows-only vulnerabilities.

Point and counterpoint. Some people think incorrectly that one must propose the alternative in order to refute a point, but those folks are wrong. You made a statement, that Windows is the reason Google issues warnings as if Windows and not poor system adminstration, is the reason for said warnings. I refuted a negative trait you incorrectly applied to Windows. I did not make the claim, in fact the opposite, that other OSes did not have this trait.

Didn't you just get done thrashing ATI/AMD for their practices, and now you're asking for a new driver for their video card? Please, which way do you want this?

Again, that whole "shifting" thing. I don't want a driver for AMD's video card, I want a driver for MY video card. You also seem to be confused by the whole "time" concept. The fact that I PREVIOUSLY purchased an AMD chipset doesn't imply agreement with policy adopted AFTER the purchase.

Excuse me, you didn't read what I wrote again.

I was talking about SOFTWARE INTEGRATION of LOOK AND FEEL. Nothing what so ever to do with integration with the OS.

I'll work on reading shit that isn't there, will you commit to explaining yourself when you're speaking of a subset of things within the greater set mentioned in the conversation?

Macs aren't JUST software integration of look and feel, but includes integration between hardware and software capabilities which is the very purpose of an operating system.

I don't use Amarok 2 or Kopete

The fact that you don't use them is irrelevant. Both are official KDE projects with dissimilar interfaces.

This comes back again to choosing hardware AND software that fits ones needs and uses, and not blaming one for the failings of the other. You would understand that if you would read what I write.

I do read what you write. I'm fluent in English as well. Hell, I even agree with you, that evaluation of needs both from hardware and software are VITAL to having a positive, producitve outcome. I even agree that bolstering or challenging one is not disparaging or lauding the other. It seems to me that your writing, if it factors this in, fails to communicate it effectively, as I've explained with specific cases above.

With that, your last post and my opinions agree in general on the question of "Which OS is better" with the answer being "The one that meets your needs".

[FKnight]

I'd say that installing VLC is about as easy on Windows as on Linux...

and

Windows, being the most used OS by home users, is the most popular target for open source software development. VLC's various codecs install on Windows with a few clicks, and open damn near any file that a standard Linux repo's will handle.

and

libdvdcss was written by the VLC people, works on Windows and ignores region.

All you're doing is reiterating that F/OSS can solve many problems that proprietary software does not solve. Something I'm trying to point out. So again, and again, all you're doing is disagreeing in order to agree with me.

No, actually all he was doing was pointing out that your contention that you can't play off-region DVDs in Windows is patently false.

[Alex Libman 15]

It takes 5 minutes to install VLC and a codec pack like K-Lite on Windows, and then you get the best of both worlds.  On Linux, on there other hand, there are some things w32codecs just won't play, and the quality is worse.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

It takes 5 minutes to install VLC and a codec pack like K-Lite on Windows, and then you get the best of both worlds.  On Linux, on there other hand, there are some things w32codecs just won't play, and the quality is worse.

More like 30 seconds, and I prefer CCCP to k-lite any day.

[Alex Libman 15]

Yeah, CCCP is tighter and easier to configure, I just don't like the name. 

[BobRobertson]

No, actually all he was doing was pointing out that your contention that you can't play off-region DVDs in Windows is patently false.

I will gladly grant that by using F/OSS rather than Microsoft's and other's legally licensed media players, it's possible to watch off-region DVDs on Windows.

But with the Windows player, you can't.