NZFF

Have a look at Ubuntu.
I recommend trying a LIVE CD (this means you can try it out without installing anything to your hard drive)
NOTE: you will have to install this on your computer and download a program called Wine in order to run windows applications .exe)
Wine can be found here.
http://www.winehq.org/
Please be careful.

Check it out here
http://www.ubuntu.com/

microsoft flight simulator? it wont run on ubuntu

i have an 8.1 disk. i dont want to install it though. not untill i have a new hard drive.

2fst4u wrote:

QUOTE (2fst4u @ Aug 23 2009, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

microsoft flight simulator? it wont run on ubuntu

...which is why I don't think it's a good idea to recommend an os on NZFF. Normally the process would be to choose the applications you wish to run, then choose the operating system which best caters to those applications. Recommending an operating system without mentioning apps seems rather about face, and doesn't serve any purpose. An operating system these days can do a lot, but it can't really do anything major which people need to do daily, except give them something pretty to look at.

I've use some apps which go back 10 years (although upgraded occasionally) -- mainly because software wasn't that cheap back then, and you'd be more inclined to get your money's worth, but also because there was such a learning curve that you wouldn't want to go through that again in a hurry.

And since most of us have already chosen our main application (FS), it wouldn't make sense to choose an os that didn't support it natively. Currently, visitor statistics to my site use these OS's:
Windows 96.4%
MacIntosh 2.3%
Linux 0.6%
Unknown unix systems -- 1 hit:) -- about 0.0005%

Its nice to know it doesnt run FS before i had a more in depth look at it ,but i cant see the harm in letting others know about it ,thus why i left it here and didnt mod it out ,just take note of what others have let you know ..

I certainly wouldn't want to see the thread removed, I just wanted some balance -- and I did look at my reply long and hard before posting. Normally when I disagree with something, I write a reply then moderate myself by not posting it:)

To me, the original post was just too brief -- almost a throw-away comment. I would really like to see some discussion from those who use other operating systems -- what do they use them for? Where do they get their applications? And since the very reason for this forum is based on two specific applications (FS2004 and FSX) how does it affect us?

Sorry about that
It is possible to run windows applications thought a program called Wine.
http://www.winehq.org/
I will in future try to give out more information
Sorry for any confusion i many have caused.
I did post this in off topic section for the reason that it wasn't anything to do with FSX or FS 2004
However it will make ay old computer feel like new.

shotgun wrote:

QUOTE (shotgun @ Aug 23 2009, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is possible to run windows applications thought a program called Wine.
http://www.winehq.org/

I'm a great fan of Ubuntu - it's the first Linux distro that didn't have GEEK stamped all over it. It's what I install for internet access PC's and for kids that just want to browse, do homework etc. as it's not an O/S targeted quite so much by the hackers. Whether it's inherently safer, I'm not sure. Anyway - it's free, and for most things, it's damn' good. It's no longer "lean 'n' mean" so the idea of being able to run it on an old, low-spec, machine is out of the window (so to speak!).

Whilst Wine can run a fair few Windows apps, I don't think it can cope with the more complex graphics orientated games or sims. In any case, MSFS (and add-ons) make so many Windows-specific calls to the registry, particular file locations etc. that I doubt very much FS9 or FSX would run. Even if it did, I doubt whether there'd be a huge performance gain.

To answer Robin's post:

1) Ubuntu: For general office/Internet use (ie. PCs that don't need to be high-spec anyway). Secure and free.

2) Win XP: My main development (work) machine. Runs stably and well on a mid-range spec system. It's my workhorse.

3) Vista Home: On my FSX machine (decent spec). Arrrrgh! I wish it was XP! Basically, it's a *dog*.

4) Windows7: I installed RC7 on a spare HD on my FSX machine. Set it up and installed FSX in minutes. It's everything Vista should have been and I'll be buying it when it comes out.

shotgun wrote:

QUOTE (shotgun @ Aug 23 2009, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry about that
It is possible to run windows applications thought a program called Wine.
http://www.winehq.org/
I will in future try to give out more information
Sorry for any confusion i many have caused.
I did post this in off topic section for the reason that it wasn't anything to do with FSX or FS 2004
However it will make ay old computer feel like new.

There's no need to apologise -- I guess there may be some confusion when a moderator posts, if they don't make it clear whether they are acting as a moderator, or just a member. In this case, I was just expressing my opinion as a member.
This is actually the the point of the 'off topic' subforum, you can post on anything, but like any new thread on a discussion forum, you need to be ready to defend your position:) There were a couple of comments in your original post which begged a reply, I don't know if you edited the post yourself, or this was changed by a moderator, but your post is a lot less likely to press my buttons with the edits... Since I don't know who edited the post, I won't comment further, except to say that I thought that the original post was acceptable, but I did feel that it begged a bit more discussion.

Adamski wrote:

QUOTE (Adamski @ Aug 23 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a great fan of Ubuntu - it's the first Linux distro that didn't have GEEK stamped all over it. It's what I install for internet access PC's and for kids that just want to browse, do homework etc. as it's not an O/S targeted quite so much by the hackers. Whether it's inherently safer, I'm not sure. Anyway - it's free, and for most things, it's damn' good. It's no longer "lean 'n' mean" so the idea of being able to run it on an old, low-spec, machine is out of the window (so to speak!).

Whilst Wine can run a fair few Windows apps, I don't think it can cope with the more complex graphics orientated games or sims. In any case, MSFS (and add-ons) make so many Windows-specific calls to the registry, particular file locations etc. that I doubt very much FS9 or FSX would run. Even if it did, I doubt whether there'd be a huge performance gain.

To answer Robin's post:

1) Ubuntu: For general office/Internet use (ie. PCs that don't need to be high-spec anyway). Secure and free.

2) Win XP: My main development (work) machine. Runs stably and well on a mid-range spec system. It's my workhorse.

3) Vista Home: On my FSX machine (decent spec). Arrrrgh! I wish it was XP! Basically, it's a *dog*.

4) Windows7: I installed RC7 on a spare HD on my FSX machine. Set it up and installed FSX in minutes. It's everything Vista should have been and I'll be buying it when it comes out.

That makes perfect sense if you want/need/have the resources to run more than one operating system, I've always assumed that generally people don't. Your explanation makes a good point for a Unix-based system, and I understand that there is a paradigm shift towards low-end systems for web-browsing, which makes it a good choice for some systems. I also understand that the biggest demand for these systems is for those who run a high-specced desktop or laptop, but like the ease of use of a web browser with low system requirements.

However, Unix has been around for a long time (almost forty years? -- certainly longer than I've been computing, which is about 25 years), and has never really made any mainstream inroads. It does have uses, but you have to ask yourself that if people continually choose to buy an expensive operating system like Windows, over a free one, then there has to be a very good reason. And don't say marketing, people are not that silly.

Every now and then someone 'discovers' Unix, and gets quite vocal, but most users are similar to me -- my PC has been ingrained in my life to such an extent that I rely on applications which were developed because of the Windows user base, rather than the for the 'best' operating system. Shotgun's comment that 'it will make any old computer feel like new' may be true for a bare os installation, but fill your system up with graphics software, desktop publishing applications, mathematics software, even genealogy tools, not to mentions the 100's of tools I use to build scenery, and the result may be a bit different. If, of course, you can find all that to run on Unix.

Adamski wrote:

QUOTE (Adamski @ Aug 23 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To answer Robin's post:

1) Ubuntu: For general office/Internet use (ie. PCs that don't need to be high-spec anyway). Secure and free.

2) Win XP: My main development (work) machine. Runs stably and well on a mid-range spec system. It's my workhorse.

3) Vista Home: On my FSX machine (decent spec). Arrrrgh! I wish it was XP! Basically, it's a *dog*.

4) Windows7: I installed RC7 on a spare HD on my FSX machine. Set it up and installed FSX in minutes. It's everything Vista should have been and I'll be buying it when it comes out.

I have 6 HDDs and have Win XP pro 32, Win XP Prox64, Vista Ultimate, Win 7 32 and Win 7x64 I am using Win XP x64 for my FSX but only because I have the full setup and heaps of add-ons on it but I also have it on Win 7 32 but with far less add ons although when I get around to putting the rest of my add ons onto it I will probably start using it more.
I am using Win 7 32 as my main OS now as it is every bit as good or better than Win XP as for Vista it is another lemon like Win ME.

I have one computer with XP 32.
One with Ubuntu 8.04.
A boot-able 2gb usb with Ubuntu.
And a computer that i share with my friend with Win7 RC on it.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Aug 23 2009, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However, Unix has been around for a long time (almost forty years? -- certainly longer than I've been computing, which is about 25 years), and has never really made any mainstream inroads. It does have uses, but you have to ask yourself that if people continually choose to buy an expensive operating system like Windows, over a free one, then there has to be a very good reason. And don't say marketing, people are not that silly.

I'm totally with you - except to say that Unix was always the predominant *server* O/S in the Internet world. I dread to remind myself, but I started my computing career way before the Internet (Fidonet, on dial-up modems!!) and - even when working for a relatively high profile Internet company in the UK - when all their desktop PCs where running Windows, the networking and Internet hosting was 100% Unix.

If we're talking about "the consumer" then there's no doubt that any of the Unix/Linux flavours have fallen well short of the Windows offerings. That said, I think think MS have quite often shot themselves in the foot and allowed other O/S's to creep in ... including Apple. However - much as I'd like to believe that a *free* O/S, designed by philanthropic geeks is better than the [admittedly flawed] commercial equivalent(s), it just isn't true.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Aug 23 2009, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every now and then someone 'discovers' Unix, and gets quite vocal, but most users are similar to me -- my PC has been ingrained in my life to such an extent that I rely on applications which were developed because of the Windows user base, rather than the for the 'best' operating system. Shotgun's comment that 'it will make any old computer feel like new' may be true for a bare os installation, but fill your system up with graphics software, desktop publishing applications, mathematics software, even genealogy tools, not to mentions the 100's of tools I use to build scenery, and the result may be a bit different. If, of course, you can find all that to run on Unix.

Totally agree. Sadly, Ubuntu has followed the crowd - down the "eye-candy" route and just isn't the slick, slimmed down O/S that it used to be. 9.04 is crippling machines that ran 6.04 quite happily. I even installed Xubuntu once (a cut down Ubuntu), to help speed up an old PC. All the hours spent persuading the system to actually work would have been better spent in buying a higher spec PC.

The irony is that the Ubuntu live CD has often helped recover/restore broken Windows systems for me. I once had an external HD that had been formatted as a "dynamic" drive by Windows Server - that was totally unreadable by Win2k, XP, Vista and RC7 (I don't have Windows Server) yet Ubuntu read it all fine.

dbcunnz wrote:

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Aug 23 2009, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have 6 HDDs and have Win XP pro 32, Win XP Prox64, Vista Ultimate, Win 7 32 and Win 7x64 I am using Win XP x64 for my FSX but only because I have the full setup and heaps of add-ons on it but I also have it on Win 7 32 but with far less add ons although when I get around to putting the rest of my add ons onto it I will probably start using it more.
I am using Win 7 32 as my main OS now as it is every bit as good or better than Win XP as for Vista it is another lemon like Win ME.

I think we had another thread going on this one, but do you think 64-bit (of either XP, Vista or Win7) made any significant difference to FSX?

I can't compare, as my Vista32 FSX is stuffed to the rafters with addons (I'm amazed it works at all!) ... but my test RC7/64 was pretty clean. Not really a fair comparison.

Often, the most stupid thing makes all the difference. In my case, it was the [then] total lack of 64-bit drivers for my Saitek gear.

Adamski wrote:

QUOTE (Adamski @ Aug 24 2009, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we had another thread going on this one, but do you think 64-bit (of either XP, Vista or Win7) made any significant difference to FSX?

I can't compare, as my Vista32 FSX is stuffed to the rafters with addons (I'm amazed it works at all!) ... but my test RC7/64 was pretty clean. Not really a fair comparison.

Often, the most stupid thing makes all the difference. In my case, it was the [then] total lack of 64-bit drivers for my Saitek gear.

There is a significant difference between using DX9 and DX10 but with DX10 a lot of the addons don't work properly the best frame rate with DX9 was with my Win XP Pro x64
I didn't test Win XP Pro 32 but with Win 7 32 DX9, Vista Ultimate DX9 and Win 7 x64 DX9 there is very little difference in the frame rate
http://nzff.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...mp;hl=fsx+tests