Windows 10 EoL is fast approaching, so I thought I’d give Linux a try on some equipment that won’t be able to upgrade to Windows 11. I wanted to see if I will be able to recommend an option to anyone that asks me what they should do with their old PC.

Many years ago I switched to Gentoo Linux to get through collage. I was very anti-MS at the time. I also currently interact with Linux systems regularly although they don’t have a DE and aren’t for general workstation use.

Ubuntu: easy install. Working desktop. Had issues with getting GPU drivers. App Store had apps that would install but not work. The App Store itself kept failing to update itself with an error that it was still running. It couldn’t clear this hurdle after a reboot so I finally killed the process and manually updated from terminal. Overall, can’t recommend this to a normal user.

Mint: easy install. Switching to nvidia drivers worked without issue. App Store had issues with installing some apps due to missing dependencies that it couldn’t install. Some popular apps would install but wouldn’t run. Shutting the laptop closed results in a prompt to shutdown, but never really shuts off. Update process asks me to pick a fast source (why can’t it do this itself?)

Both: installing apps outside of their respective stores is an adventure in terminal instead of a GUI double-click. Secure boot issues. Constant prompt for password instead of a simple PIN or other form of identity verification.

Search results for basic operations require understanding that what works for Ubuntu might not work for Mint.

While I personally could work with either, I don’t see Linux taking any market share from MS or Apple when windows 10 is retired.

  • Grass
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    windows isn’t ready to replace windows. they never have been.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Poor take. 3.1, NT4, 95, 98SE, 2000, xp, 10. All were widely considered to be a considerable improvement over the OS they replaced.

        • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Vista was a sacrifice. They needed vista to be awful so 8+ could fly.

          ME was designed by the marketing team.

          • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            I really liked Vista, it was the first stable Windows for me that I didn’t have to reinstall once in a while.

            Never used 8, I hated it.

            Millennium wasn’t just a stunt, but it got bad reputation bcs of not-really compatible drivers with W98.

      • Grass
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        sure good old fashioned stuff from when I was a baby or something excluding 10 which really didn’t offer much apart from more telemetry than ever and even more convoluted system settings menus. I’ll let the pre-10 releases that weren’t total garbage slide but any widely considered improvement going forward at least will be shills, bots, and ai articles, calling it now.

        • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I suspect with MS pushing their products to be based on webview2 (teams, new outlook, etc) that the next OS they release will be designed for a more efficient cpu architecture, similar to what Apple is doing. Like vista, it will probably suck until it gains more mainstream support.