Could this be the distro that gets me to like linux?

[Fizzybrain]

Every couple of years for about the last two and a half decades I have really tried to like Linux, but I have never managed it. I mean, I like the idea of it, but it's always been hard work.
But as I have found a need for a secondary computer in the shed I have wanted to get an old 3GB 3GHz P4 working, and of course I couldn't carry on using XP on it.
Over the last few days I tried Ubuntu (U-, Lu-, Xu-), Zorin Os (standard, Lite), Linux Lite, Bionic Puppy, Mint (Mate, XFCE), Slitaz, Sparkylinux (lxqt, minimal, xfce), Tinycore ... but they all had some annoying problem (sometimes failing altogether) or design philosophy I just couldn't be bothered with.
But then I found AntiX and MX. Both *worked*, both had the right level of control and the documentation is great.
Hurrah!
Admittedly I mostly tried these distros using a YUMI multiboot stick, so maybe that was a problem, but it is worth considering that that is exactly the sort of thing that keep the Windows users unconverted.
I am now looking forward to putting it on a slew of old laptops and netbooks. Maybe I'll even be brave enough to put it on my main machine. Time will tell....
Thanks everyone - computing is fun again *!

(* As long as I can run Firefox, Chrome, LibreOffice, Musescore, GIMP and a file manager that thinks that when I ask for the folder size I want the total size of the items within that folder rather than an indication of how much space the filesystem entries take up...)

[handy]

Dun'no

[seaken64]

MX can be a good system for current or Ex windows users. But you just have to remember that Linux is not Windows. I use Windows every day and I think MX is quite nice. But I also think you can get good use out of Q4OS and Xubuntu or Linux MInt. Try 'em all and decide. If you like antiX and/or plain Debian, then MX will probably win out.

Seaken64

[manyroads]

I think liking an OS/distro depends on what you want. What you're willing to learn. What you're willing to do. Freedom always comes with a cost.

[Minux1]

Windows 10 is like my brand new Ford 350 diesel 4x4 with the auto transmission that I just jump in and drive when I need to get something done.(BUSINESS)
Linux is like the old 1970 GMC truck I built from scrounged parts and that I am always tinkering with.(RECREATION).
I like them both for different reasons.

[Fizzybrain]

Oh I think I've already decided that it is - my original question was mostly rhetorical ;-)

Initially I did look up "Linux for Windows users" and to be honest I think I was wrong to do so. Once a user has grasped the concept of holding a mouse and moving a cursor around the screen then GUIs all appear to be much the same on the surface. The applications all look and feel much the same, especially now with web-based and cross-platform apps. The differences between Windows and Linux become difficulties when trying to adjust settings and other under-the-hood stuff, just as similar difficulties occurred in the transition from (BBC Micro to) DOS to Windows 3 to 95 to 98 to XP to Windows 10.

Linuxes-that-resemble-Windows are no less of a learning curve in that sense than Linuxes-that-don't-resemble-Windows. To try to make Linux *look* like Windows isn't really the issue, it just has to have procedures that make sense and are well-documented and that seems to be the case here. I don't know whether people think that MX is a particularly Windows-user-friendly OS or not, but I feel more comfortable here on MX than any other Linux I have tried.

No doubt other Linuxes have improved too since I last had a look, but MX is the best of the bunch (for my situation) this time round.

Thanks to everyone who makes it what it is :-)

[m_pav]

On a machine of that age, it might be a good idea to install an older kernel using our MX Package Manager and switch to using that. Newer kernels have a heap more code and much of it can't be used by older Processors and Chipsets and it just takes longer for them to process all the code, so in such cases, the older kernels are more efficient.

MXPI > Popular Applications > Kernels > Select antix 4.9 kernel for your architecture and install.

Installing the older kernel can be a lengthy process on older machines, and it will be held up a bit by all the 64-or-so pre-loaded locales, so if you run "system locales" and uncheck all that you don't use, the tool will remove them making it faster for any process that needs to reconfigure the systems "init" files. After unchecking the locales to remove, on the next screen you can specify your default locale and complete the process. It's an easy process to do, just takes a little time to scroll through the hundreds of possible locales.

[Pierre]

you can't compare the two systems:
- that Windows System .. is an highly customised system . .
- this Linux System . . is plain vanilla

it does really depend, on what you want from your machine,
and the plain vanilla folks, often do have issues with an Windows System.
as it will mess around with their setup, & which they don't like.

those customiser folks, can't get their plain vanilla Linux System,
- to do what they really want from their setup.

[JayM]

Is today Opposite Day and nobody told me? What you said couldn't be more wrong. Windows is closed-source. You buy it and you get what you get with no way to change it unless someone creates mods or hacks. You're stuck with Windows' desktop, "start menu", taskbar, etc. Linux is totally open-source. If you don't like something, download the source code and change it yourself. You have your choice of pretty much everything from your distro, your kernel, your init system, your desktop environment, your window manager, your themes, icons and cursors, your menu, your apps... You can customize the daylights out of Linux. You can even create your own from scratch or base it on an existing distro and make a fork or respin. Sheesh.

[Fizzybrain]

Look, there's no need to get exasperated about this.

My comment was not meant to be a comparison between Windows and Linux, rather an opinion that the distros that are trying to resemble Windows on the screen are missing the point. It's not about what kind of menus you have, it's about how easy it is to make basic changes that any normal user is likely to want to do, for example attaching drives, networking, etc. A distro that concentrates on making this easier for everyone will be easier to use for everyone, including users coming from Windows.

In the past it has been the case that basic changes were - for the non-expert - easy in Windows and difficult in Linux (if a user has to manually edit config files to change screen resolution, for example, then most people would find that difficult)
It was also the case that complicated changes like changing start menu or kernel were possible in Linux (though also difficult) but practically impossible in Windows - but the vast majority of people most people have no need or desire to do this.

Telling someone that they can download the source and change it is ... well there's a different between being *allowed* to do something and being *able* to do something. Perhaps my expression "... adjust settings and other under-the-hood stuff" was poorly chosen. To continue the automobile analogy, I'm talking about filling the radiator rather than replacing the entire engine.

ANYway, what I was trying to say was that the methods and documentation behind making such basic configuration changes are now evidently very much improved (in MX, at least, as far as I can tell), which is a Good Thing. The fact that those methods are different from those in Windows or that my desktop looks different doesn't matter. I am now looking forward to using Linux to carry out my various pastimes rather than necessarily having it *be* one of them.

Please, try to recognise this as a grateful compliment.

(m_pav - thanks for the kernel tip, I'll look into it)