It would be my opinion to just stay with 7, if you don't like 8. JMO.

Ubuntu is ok, but it ain't Windows. Before I'd do Linux as my main OS, I'd go back to XP.

No,

and

No...;)

I did exactly that.  A look.

And that's exactly where I ended up.

Other than that the only useful (?) thing I can add is that it appeared to be more of a hobby endeavor than I'm up for at this point.

I have played a bit with several flavors of Linux, like Gnome, and Ubuntu. I'll stick with Windows, thanks.

There really is only one major issue with W8: the UI...now, for the people that don't like the W8 UI, that is a huge issue, but it is the only major one....so, for the sake of argument....

Let us first assume that the W8 UI is in fact truly terrible and wrongheaded...from that we could say W7 is the best (or near best) UI for meeting the needs of most PC users (otherwise, why would W7 be so popular and acclaimed?)...logically it would seem then that Linux (since it also deviates from the W7 UI) would not be any better than W8 unless a certain Linux distro had a near identical UI to that of W7...

Now, let us instead assume that the W8 is in fact a significant improvement and a fantastic UI, but most people are too stupid or too lazy to learn or understand it....if that is indeed the case, they sure as hell aren't going to be any more willing to learn a Linux UI (unless it is near identical to W7)...

The main reason why W8 turns off people is because of its UI...as far as I'm concerned, Linux distros don't solve that issue because they too have different UIs from what people are expecting...it doesn't matter whether it's because W7 is the ideal UI or because people are too stupid to adapt (or some combination), no matter how you spin it the UI of Linux is also going to be a major roadblock for people dissatisfied with W8...as someone said earlier, if someone doesn't like the UI of W8, they will turn to W7 before turning to Linux...

Now to be fair, Linux distros do have start buttons and traditional start menus and so one could argue Linux (or at least a certain distro) is closer to W7 than W8 is...but beyond the start menu/screen, W8 is nearly identical to W7 so I don't really buy into that argument....

Even if we completely ignore the UI issue, there are a host of problems with Linux...a big one (for many, the biggest) is thattoo much software is only available on windows (or windows and MAC, but not Linux)...because of this, most people need windows regardless of whether they like it or not...going along that line is driver support...in many cases Linux users simply cannot get the most recent versions of graphics card drivers (NVIDIA is the big problem) and cannot get the most optimized chipset drivers (in general, Linux systems run hotter because the driver controlling cooling and what not is more optimized for Windows)...that is, of course, assuming there even is a Linux driver (in most cases there are, but new tech often has problems until someone develops a Linux driver)...

Then there is the "out of the box" aspect...windows in general has more "built in" features that are needed by the average user...even simple features like playing audio files is not doable by all Linux distros without going out of your way to download extra software....it is true that most nearly every task that can be done in windows can also be done in Linux, but Linux users in general are going to have to go to much more trouble ensuring they have all the software and drivers they need (Linux Mint is helping in this regard but still no where near Windows when it comes to proprietary drivers)....

I will end with the issue of conformity...there are so many different distros of Linux that it would be very difficult for most people to become well acquainted with even most of them....in short, Windows makes things much easier for businesses and users by offering one "distro" at a time...if I know windows, I can pretty much guarantee no matter what job I take, I will at least understand the OS I'm working with...that could not be said for Linux unless major efforts were taken by industry and PC producers to adopt only one or two versions of Linux...

for individuals no really.

for institutions and larger businesses definitely. i don't think it was a smart move to drastically change the ui and drop support for XP at almost the same time. it wont be Ubuntu, but rather Red Hat and SuSE though.

softwarewise, for me it lacks Photoshop (unfortunately that is the most important one) only, the rest of my main software (LibreOffice, Chrome, Inkscape, Eclipse, VLC, SciTE, ...)  exists for both OSs. if you're a gamer though or for some reason like to run two dozens of anti-malware and registry cleaner programs simultanously you'll likely have a problem.

it's a synchronicity that you ask, considering this was in the news yesterday: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/mark-shuttleworth-gives-up-dream-of-ubuntu-toppling-windows/

I have been using Ubuntu for years for work, I have a Windows partition only for gaming. 

For a casual user, the GUI experience in Ubuntu is largely identical to that with Windows 7/XP.

Plus it's free.

There is really no reason why casual users should prefer Windows, other than crowd mentality. 

Of course, if you use specialized Win only software for work, that's another matter. 

Going XP is not very smart, because the support will end next year, security patches will stop coming, and you will just offer a convenient platform for DOS attacks, spam and hacking to any party interested. 

Lol, no.

Jafo - wrong on both counts. Redneckdude - GNOME is a desktop environment, not a linux distro. Seleuceia - Your last post is full of statements that are simply not true.

Thanks, Kona...I knew I could rely on you to set me straight.

Where WOULD I be without your sagacity? ...;)

But the fact is,

My Opinion: If you get a new rig with 8 on it, or you want to move from XP, run with it, With a few "adjustments" it's a decent OS. Otherwise, keep your money.  If you have Windows 7, you've seen all this before.

I know that Linux does not have the third party support that is in place for Windows. 

My question is really a simple one, based upon the changes in Windows 8 does that open the door, so to say, that folks who normally would use Windows give Linux a look.  With that, third party software to enhance the GUI, may well come along with working versions of software and programs for some of the more popular programs.  Sort of a domino effect, the door opens and in comes Linux. 

I also understand that it would not take place overnight.  

Casual users won't like the need to use terminal "command line" actions to get things done. One huge reason, IMO, why I wouldn't use Linux for anything other than a secondary OS to "investigate and learn."

YMMV

I sit corrected.

Is the use of "command line" a major hindrance in third partly software being developed for Linux or just a different way of doing things that would need to be learned.  

I have to disagree. I know people, bless their souls, who are still using Windows 98 and 2000 and aren't having those troubles.

honestly i'm completely against the UI changes Microsoft has made. they're trying to turn my PC into a tablet which it is not, but they don't care. But still W8 is basically W7 with a face lift and some annoying tiles. Remove the tiles and get a traditional desktop and you have what basically amounts to W7. 

but to remain on topic, No i don't think as much as it pains me to say, Linux will be making any strides because of microsofts UI choices. At least i don't think it will simply because Macs are so much more reliable for the simple minded and have a broader selection of software then linux right now. However with the climbing sales of tablets and other mobile devices though i think that the people who don't like W8 will simply buy a new tablet over a new computer. Take aside gamers and business professionals and you have the average person who only uses the computer to check email, surf a few social sites and search the net for news and info. 

That all aside you need to look for at a direction and it's destination rather then the current state of windows. MS is moving everything online and starting to restructure themselves as a service provider. meaning that you'll be using MS office as a service so without a internet connection your going to be screwed. All products we know and love will soon be online services. Games are no exception to this, look at all the mmo's that are out there and even some single player games are requiring constant internet connection to play them. 

So the changes to W8 isn't geared for the desktop PC or even laptop PCs, it's geared towards the tablets and mobile devices that will make up most of the industry of tomorrow. 

But us Linux lovers will soon be grateful for this as with everything as a service then the platform we use to access them is irrelevant and we can use anything we want. So in the next decade you'll start to see the platform become less and less important for everything except gaming. But even that is being pushed more and more to consoles (which irks me as i hate consoles) and the PC gaming community gets smaller and smaller. eventually gamers will be the largest group of PC users.

For any interested:

How to dual boot W8 and Ubuntu.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tired-of-windows-8-how-to-dual-boot-windows-ubuntu/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=2012-05-31

Good info, Doc. Super easy too.

Everything is easy for you smart, intellignent people.........oh wait, you are a redneck, how on earth did you figure it out?   

Care to elaborate?

OK, so Windows 8 does not suit everyone but I think the main problem with it is that it is designed for a touchscreen computer or laptop. Mac have tried this in the past and Steve Jobs pointed out that it was not practical. The fact that people want a Start menu seems to back this fact up. It would be interesting to know how many people have or would want a touchscreen apart from the tablets.

Touch screen monitors were made to make your desktop or laptop more like a tablet. W8 is used for tablets and phones, it was designed to have one OS power all devices for Microsoft. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense and saves a ton of money rather having three different OS's that your having to work on, not to mention paying three times the number of people to push all three teams.

So don't think for a minute that MS went out of there way to support a monitor. Monitor manufacturers are just taking advantage of the new feature and pushing monitors that support it. I don't know the sales numbers on touchscreen monitors but i'd be surprised if it out numbers traditional monitors.

Nothing TO elaborate. Your post was SPOT ON with some of the most logical and valid points presented.