To: dybdahl who wrote (62928 ) 11/12/2001 7:42:15 PM From: David Howe Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74651 << No matter how you have drawn the charts the last couple of years, Linux would become the number 1 competition. >> Lars, I'm afraid I just don't see it. In the past you've described how Linux can run on old PC's. From what I've seen in my explorations the last 24 hours you need a fairly new PC to run a decent version of Linux. Sure, you could put one of the versions like "small Linux" or some other simple version on an old PC, but what would it do, run a calculator? The Linux versions that work similar to Windows are very large storage hogs. From the download versions I've determined that you actually need MORE space on your hard drive than you do with Windows 98 or Me. For full functional Linux you need more than 2 Gigs. One guy on the Motley Fool MSFT board says his system needs 9 Gigs for all of the OS and support apps to run his Linux. How the heck is that going to run well on the PC's you've described on this board in the past? I have a guy at work bringing me the CD-ROMs necessary to load Linux onto an extra PC at home. He has played with Linux on his home PC for several years, but thinks Windows is simply better. He describes the great difficulty in getting an up to date version of Linux that is compatible with the latest applications, yet still stable. Sure, you can get a core Linux OS that is very stable, but it doesn't do anywhere near what Windows can. I will know more when I try it first hand, but everything I've learned in my experiment so far leads me to believe that there are WAY more reasons that Linux will remain a 'hobby' OS for the PC than I originally thought. IMO, Dave