[TechieXP]

Wow! Said a mouth full didn't you?

When I see Linux come up I think of this. I realize because its open-source people aren't going to sit around an program billions of lines of code for free. However since many people I know who prefer Linux, do so because they don't want to use Microsoft programs. So since Linux is free...this would be an opportunity for you all to get togther and program something that is better than Windows. It is obvious money is the driving force behind WIndows and OSX. However isn't OSX based on something that is apart of Linux? They found a way to charge for it so can Linux. All you have to do is make something that is better. Even in all these years Linux's desktop still looks as boring as the classic theme in WIndows. Actually its worse. Unzipping something as a tas package is still too complication for an average user who is use to pointing and clicking.

To me Linux is to Unix what Windows 3 was to DOS. Nothing more then a chhesy UI to run on top of a shell. The good ole reliable CLI. Only problem even WIndows 3.x wasn't this bad. Of course we have made progress because many thing we do in teh OS was even around then. Even something as simple as unzipping was easy to do in DOS with programs like PKUNzip. So in about 10 years this is as good as it gets?

I agree with you. In counties where children will never be able to afford a computer, who are virgin to what an OS is...and is starting fresh where there is no bias opinions...then Ubuntu which isn't it an African word,...will have a chance for success. Here wher we need power on the UI and not in the command shell is much different. And that is what another commenter eluded too. We don't want to go back to teh stoneage of computing. Yes you can show an average user basic usage like emailing and using internet. But suppose it gets more technical. Well then they can always go back to Windows...right? Well why leave it. Windows has it all. But i am perfectly ok with someone experimenting with Linux...and find that it works for them in some way. But it does work for everyone. Even OSX has some of those annoying Linux like UI features and it sucks. I don't know how Mac OS was before OSX as I have never used it...so when people say OSX is just so must better...then it must have been really bad before. Because it is nice an very usable...but it too isn't Windows. I don't even consider it a replacement...but it is surely a better alternative then Linux.

People here aren't going to use an OS that isn't more like Windows. They ahve all been spoiled. Its like Chris Rock said...once a person reasons a certain point in life...they don't want to go back. Like if a person is poor...and he/she gets rich...you think they want to go back to being poor again? Linux to me is for poor people...however business have found a great use of it...data-protection. You data is protected..because not everyone is going to be smart enough to use Linux to attack you. An everyone else is to busy trying to make Linux better, so they aren't going to attack themselves.

Linux to me is Unix with a GUI that they want people to try to use on a desktop. Even IT guys that use Linux don't ever use the GUI. When I came to where I was...I was still new to using Linux. And I had been working with Digium/Asterisk to develop a PBX for the company I work for. After going through 5 so-called popular builds of Linux...I finally landed on on CentOS and so far so good. However there is Windows version that has a GUI, and I set that up for a normal business. I had it up and running for 500 users in a call center in one day...with Linux it too be over a year to finally get a stabalized version of Linux that would work. Another reason we brought in a Mac Pro...to test running teh software an configuring it under OSX. It can be done...but to much of a nightmare.

And we are doing all compiling on another Linux system (a laptop running CentOS) and the compiling takes so long for a large phone system. And forget about running Linux on a cheezy box. You need a PC as power as what you would use for any other OS. That crap Linux can rub on cheezy hardware is crock. It can as long as you don't need powerful programs. But that would be true of any OS. You can run Vista on minimum specs as long as you need nothing else beyond the OS and lets say Office.

For so many that hate Windows, it seems this would be opprtunity to push and get ahead. If Linux was better than Windows I am sure people would switch. If OSX was better than Windows I am sure they would hurry an switch. But anyone who does leave Windows...OSX would probably still be a better choice for people who don't want to get away from teh many benefits of Windows. Hving it all there and doiing it in limited steps is a must for pc users...young or old. and nether can do Linux. Its ok for young college minds or high schoolers are people who like to tinker with tech...but its a whole noither story to drop it on a mass population. It simply isn't ready.

[Evildave]

TechieXP said:

I am curious to know if you are able to use ALL the features of your all in one with Linux? Like can you scan through Linux? Or fax. I can make any printer print in any OS just using a generic HP driver that works with practically any printer.

With the Brother, all of the features. Brother provides the drivers. Print, Scan, FAX. You have to 'follow instructions' to set them up, but it's not any 'harder' than setting up an MFC printer in Windoze WITHOUT the 600MB of always-running crapware most printer manufacturers install with their windoze drivers.

[waldojim]

no they would not switch away from windows. People like you are too closed minded to do so. I have used Linux for many years, and have watched it progress through the awkward stages of making the GUI work for you and not against you. I have watched the community make drivers to support TONS of hardware, new and old. I will even claim to have lived without Windows for a time, when Loki was releasing Games For Linux (Quake 3, SOF, Heretic 2, etc) I had the games I wanted, on my OS of choice, and they were actually MORE fun on Linux, as I never had a game or the os crash.

I could go without the command line, but I do tend to use it when the task would be easier that way. I do the same in windows too. When I want to check network settings, do you a. go through 4-6 pages of windows crap to get there? Do the same in Linux? or b. Use the command line and appropriate command? I use the quick and simple method everytime. I do not care what OS I am in.

You and those before you seem to get stuck on, 'What I have to learn something NEW?' and nothing ever gets accomplished. This is also why Vista was a flop. Not because of the securtiy problems at launch, or the fact that 75% of the printers on the market were killed by it, or even that you could not use Creative Soundcards. Nope, people cannot stand the unfamillar.

I do not want MY linux being a Windows CLONE. I want a Distincive, FAST, Friendly OS that can do its job. And for the most part, that is what Linux is.

[TechieXP]

Sounds like your addresses could be getting blocked by the firewall software. You can create a manual rule for allowing coonection from computers in IP Range of 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.256

that way your pc's bhind the firewall will cnnect. Norton is a bit better as if it fines IP addresses on your network...it will verify for you if you want to allow these connections. Why not just uninstall those...install AVG and use Windows buildin Firewall
Then use the wizard builtin Windows to configure you network for you.

[eMJay]

You're wasting your time. Your constant anti-Linux rants won't actually change anything. Posts in these tech forums only gets read by the tiny minority of persons who actually read this kind of stuff. You need to realize that there are desktop-friendly distros as well as desktop-unfriendly versions. By just emphasizing and exaggerating features of desktop-unfriendly versions of Linux, you're guilty of doing exactly what Mac fanbois do on a daily basis against PCs - exaggerating the worst case scenarios as if they are typical issues for the majority. You're also not taking into account the fact that ANY OS that gains enough mainstream adoption will garner increased attention from the hardware and software industry, and any problems or difficulties that were caused or perpetuated by obscurity will simply disappear over time.
While you're busy talking about tar archives, the typical Ubuntu user is simply double-clicking .deb files and installing programs just as if they were .exe files in Windows. The more popular Ubuntu gets, the more .deb files will become available...that's market dynamics. There are even sites now that provides the .deb files for you if a site doesn't yet offer pre-compiled files. eg. www.getdeb.net/
Sites are already beginning to take Ubuntu into account on their download pages and are automatically directing Ubuntu users to the .deb versions of their installation files. So much for being forced to use .tar.
While you're busy trashing the default GUIs of Linux distros, Ubuntu users are going to sites like [http://www.gnome-look.org/] and downloading themes that make Windows XP feel like a blue version of Win95. And the theme installation has gotten so easy that theme managers now support drag and drop installation - you just drop the file into the manager window and it installs. No clicking even required. Everything from start-up to shut-down can be themed. When it comes to GUI's you're completely missing the point. Linux' default GUIs are designed so that the very low powered machines can use them - it's the opposite with Windows, where the GUI is designed for the most capable machines. Furthermore, it's only recently that Linux graphics drivers were engineered to take advantage of the full graphics functionality of modern GPUs. That kept things back on the Linux GUI front, but expect to see some really nifty stuff in the near future, now that the issue is being rectified.
You mentioned that people aren't going to use an OS that isn't more like Windows. But what you don't realize is that Windows is morphing into a UNIX-like OS! Have you taken a good look at the new features and UI of Windows 7 lately? There's OSX and Gnome all over it. Look at 7's window layout and left-side panel....it's just a more complicated variation of what's already found in Ubuntu and OSX. You've got the bar near the top of the window that lets you jump backwards through the hierarchy of windows - that's OSX and Linux. Pictures and other document thumbnails are now previews of the very files - very Unix-like don't you think? You have the ability to enlarge thumbnail icons in a window using a slider....just like clicking on the icon magnification options in Ubuntu. I'm surprised they didn't copy the Linux option to use tabs in navigation windows. They now have the live windows previews in the taskbar...that's a Compiz feature right there. Win7 now sports the ability to manually reorder the contents of the taskbar by dragging them like tabs in a browser...I was doing that in Ubuntu all last year.. There's that feature that Windows Media Player now has that lets you preview music just by moving the mouse pointer over it. In Linux you can preview music files that are just sitting in folders by using exactly that method...without even needing to open a music player. I could go on and on. By copying so many UI features from Unix-based OSes, MS is only going to make it easier for OS migration to occur.
The only thing that can actually take significant global market share from MS now is competition from a commercial entity with the financial resources to compete with MS for OEM installations across all the PC price points and in enterprise. That hasn't happened yet, but it just might. Your problem is that you think that's what the entire Linux community is after. It's not; not even close. It's Google that you need to be worrying about. They have the resources and the corporate backing to pull the rug from under Microsoft's business model if they play their hand correctly. With the launch of their Android OS, they could create a software platform on mobile phones and netbooks that can easily be expanded to the desktop and to cloud computing. So while you're wasting your time trying to stick it to desktop versions of Linux, Google's adaptation of Linux is gearing to sneak up on you.
And speaking of sneaking up, there's a rumor out now that claims Apple is exploring a purchase of Electronic Arts to force gaming onto its platform. That's something you should be worried about, not Desktop Linux.

[WinTard]

I don't worry about Microsoft. I like Microsoft.
I don't worry about Google. I like Google.
I don't worry about Linux. I like Linux
I don't worry about Apple. I don't know Apple. But I don't like all the FUD from fanbois...
I don't worry about ...

I just don't worry about the little things...

Oh and I can easily afford any Apple... But for the moment choose not to. My choice! I've got better things to do first...

And I'll drop any brand or company, just like that. No brand loyalty. That's WinTard. A free thinker. No strings. No limits. But I am loyal to people; those I call my friends.

:)

~~~~~~~~~~
Love people. Use things. Not vice-versa.
~ Kelly Rothaus

[Evildave]

One small problem with your argument: Linux is already infinitely superior to Windoze.

Improving it to 'beat windoze' would be like Mercedes engineers scrambling up to build a better car than an AMC Gremlin.

[WinTard]

Only in your opinion.

[TechieXP]

So you just proved y point. I do use Linux and there are 2 distros I have always liked..Sus and Mandrake. That fact that I work with Linux and didn't know about the things you mention just shows if a newbie jumps on board they will be just as lost. I agree Ubuntu is probably the best of all the distros...and I use it as well. But EVERYTHING isn't drag and drop, so its still going to be complicated. A beginner isn't going to know what a .deb file is. You know because you been working woth it and understand it more. With Windows everything is already familar.

As far as the UI. I am familiar with Gnome. Not everyone will be. People who like changing thees in Windows already know about sites like Themexp.org....and WindowsBlinds and so many others...and just like with Linux I am sure anyone can Google what they need to find. But we are talking about what you can do very quickly and get right up to speed. Windows is still easier...even if it is because we have gotten so use to it over teh past 30 years. That's a 30 year advantage.

As far as some of those things you mentioned? As I am sure you are aware, Microsoft also made a Unix variant off of what Bell Labs has. Windows has always carried plenty of Unix features. if you need them they are available on ALL versions of Windows NT CD's. So all of those things you mentioned...it not about who does it first. You assumption is...oh my god they copied this or that. Windows GUI doesn't use a lot of resources. If you look at your ram and turn off the GUI you'll see mot that much gets freed up. Aero just uses the power of your GPU to enhance the look of 7 and Vista...but again if you tun it off it isn't using much cpu or memory resources...its all GPU based.

Not to worried about Apple buying EA...if they do so what...Windows will still be a gaming platfor for a long time...again it has years of experience as an advantage. And in Apple case Windows has a very big advantage. Maybe APple is buying EA because rumor has it, Apple may enter the console market. As far as Google..whatever happens - happens. Change is good and I am certainly not against it.

Whatever works I will useit. Right now Windows simply works...Linux has come a long way and I applaued it progress...still has a ways to go.it still isn't easy enough for everyone. If it was...BEING FREE..more people would be using it.

[rgreen4]

Only if you happen to have a machine that the Linux developers have happened to write drivers for, or if you enjoy spending a lot of time with command lines.

[TechieXP]

But that's your opinion...right? Which i respect.
And I agree there are many benefits of Linux over Windows and same goes for OSX.
But I am seeing it from a different angle. I am considering the average joe user vs a hobbist who may like playing with tech toys and is more open to learn.

Most computer users don't do much with the OS it self. It is simply just to host other applications. I don't use any of teh features in Windows other than networking and the calculator and I like to change how the desktop looks. I don't play Windows gaes or anything else. I have a storage drive that has everything laid out where I need it so I don't have to search. But many of the comercial based software that most people use in Windows don't NATIVELY run in other offering. To make them work you have to go through complicated steps..PERIOD. if a person doesn't know what a CPU is or what RAM really is...who is going to understand .DEB...or any other extension of a file. Most people in Windows don't even know what a file extension is. They couldn't tell you the difference between a jpg and a bmp. Its all the same to them. With Linux these are thing you HAVE TO KNOW...in Windows you don't. Most people have come to learn Windows better by using other devices. Like jpg is more formal because practically all phones and cameras use this format for pictures. So peole have gotten use to it...so it is a standard. But hey PBG is just as good...you think these people know what that is...NO!

You and emJay make good points about Linux. But they are moot because you are both Linux efficient and most computer users are barely coputer literate. Linux is going ot be to hard for them...and what about kids. Can kids get right on Linux and use it as is? NO! They would have it easier with OS..again you have to consider ALL users of a computer. You think that 4 years old girl could be taught how to do what she did in the Windows commercial in Linux? Of course if you showed her enough times...but I am willing to bet she would remember the Windows way because it is easier.

You know teh old saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". That is what Linux is up against. Windows is an ole dog that has been a proven concept that worked almost right out the box. In fact it worked so well, it suppassed the previous offering almost immediately. We are use to having things this way...and unless it is equal or better people aren't going to jump on it.

For a new generation that thinks different OSX and Linux will do very well. But for us older folks...we like what we have.

[waldojim]

" I agree Ubuntu is probably the best
of all the distros...and I use it as well. But EVERYTHING isn't drag
and drop, so its still going to be complicated. A beginner isn't going
to know what a .deb file is. You know because you been working woth it
and understand it more. With Windows everything is already familar."

That is a sad line TechiXP. One that I have heard before, and this is simple. I Windows user does not understand extensions anymore. They understand what the pretty picture means. .deb files are associated with the installer, and will have a pretty picture to go with it. That is incredibly easy for a new user to pick up on. As far as finding .deb files on the internet, also easy. VLC reference here, notice the Ubuntu link, this is getting relatively common, to just call a .deb file an Ubuntu package. (not correct mind you, just common)

"As far as the UI. I am familiar with Gnome. Not everyone will be. People who like changing thees in Windows already know about sites like Themexp.org....and WindowsBlinds and so many others..."
I am not sure I understand the problem here... you are saying that people will be upset because they no longer need to buy Windowsblinds? I would have thought that a good thing... anyhow, people learn Free, and they Like free. SO this means a new website, just google ubuntu themes, and be amazed at the list in front of you.

" Windows GUI doesn't use a lot of resources. If you look at your ram and turn off the GUI you'll see mot that much gets freed up"
Currently DWM (areo) and Explorer (also desktop interface) are currently using a combined 52MB of ram. The largest 2 programs in my task manager (apart from FF). and Side bar comes in third with 10MB - yes the GUI is heavy and bloated. But that seems to be the trend thesse days, even in Linux, So I for one, will forgive MS.

"Whatever works I will useit. Right now Windows simply works...Linux has come a long way and I applaued it progress...still has a ways to go.it still isn't easy enough for everyone. If it was...BEING FREE..more people would be using it."
Unfortunately, that is wrong. being free means no marketing Money to advertise, to counteract FUD, to prove its usefullness, etc. being free is a major disadvantage.

[TechieXP]

Whether the statement is tired or not...its still true. Just like there are better offering of any product in an industry, most people will stick to what they know.

Also you don't need to spend billions of dollars to advertsie free. So that line you said is tred too. Theer are more people who know about Linux then you all give credit for...its just no one cares. People are going to use what they are familiar with. Windows @ work = Windows @ home. Windows @ friends house = Windows @ home. OSX @ work = OSX @ home. OSX @ school = OSX @ home. No linux @ work/school to help me get familiar with it...why would I download it @ home?

People see references to Linux all the time online. They know what the penguin means.

As far as the themeing programs I mentioned? I was simply saying these are names users are familiar with. I am not saying they can't get use to something else. However those thing you mentioned about Gnome work for those who know how to use it...or have learned too. Can anyone learn it? NO! Fact is as easy as most pc terms are and Windows terms, some people in 40 years don't know what they mean. But as you said...most do reconize icons. But without teh exptensions visible...if I place a bunch of pictures in a folder and activate teh thumbnial view, you think anyone can pick out which is a bmp, jpg, png or gif? NO! they all look the same...

When something is free and it is worth having you don't need to advertise it. There are churches and missions here that give away food and clothing everyday. And theer are long lines everyday. You think they advertise on TV...NO!. Word of mouth is better than all the paid advertsing in the word. All advertsing does is reach more people at one time. If Linux was worth advertinsing I can't see how they wouldn't advertise it. Anything that would be better than Windows wouldn't take much advertsing. There is YouTube where you can upload videos. Sites that using Open-Source software like those that use PHP could easily provide links to distros of linux. There are plenty of sites I visit by accident that have references to Linux and the penguin. As vast as teh internet is...there is no way you can surf and never see a reference to Linux. Problem is...does the info provide enough hype to get people to dive in an look? NO! The links are usually non-sculant..have lil to no information. Everyone know about Wikipedia...they can simply type in Linux and learn somethong about it. Again when people have what works for them they have no need to look anywhere else.

MSFT obviously got lucky when they introduced their software through IBM. Apple too jumped out and introduced their own software on there own computer. But remember when teh Apple Ii was introduced...it was done so at geek computer show. They didn't have any money. When MSFT went to IBM...they didn't have any money. They went to the with nothing...they didn't even have an OS...they were just hoping to buy one. They simply took a chance. You're telling me Linux can't do that. What about Firefox...those guys didn't have money to get started. What about the boy who create Yahoo. All it was - was a site of all ads. All you need is a good idea and you can build your own website for free if you have teh jnowledge. All you have to do is put your name in the right places. Someone will notice you if you are worth it. Maybe just maybe...Linux is't worth it. The market for OS' is sown up for teh most part. They are dominate by two companys that have a commercial solution that already works. Th efree solution doesn't do what teh commercial stuff does.

[sudokode]

People always ask me what's the easiest way to learn linux. Simple, run it as a VM. If you don't like it, no harm done. You can always boot it from a livecd, but here you're limited to the cd. Under a vm, you can install it and use it.
And why do us linux users get bitchy at people asking questions? Oh this is so easy. Because we were in their shoes at one point. And I know for a fact I googled wayyy more than they did before asking that question.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING FOR HELP, BUT GOOGLE ISN'T AS MEAN.

[rasmasyean]

You don't get the same reaction when asking for help in Windows forums.
And definately not Mac forums.

[WinTard]

In all of this controversy, brouhaha, and confusion, I reiterate I would never quit either Linux or Windows... Simple eh?

~~~~~~~~~~
The superior man does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow.
~ Confucius

[TechieXP]

In order to quit don't you have to be hired? So maybe the article should be Top 7 Reason to Fire Linux :-)...because I would be hiring Linux if I install it on my PC...bec I would be installing it to do my work.

So far in my experience with Linux, I have found 2 distros I feel comfortable with using for various reasons. At work I have used CentOS to run an Asterisk phone system for out PBX. At home I didn't like Ubuntu at all and I even tried Mint which I also don't like. I still enjoy using Suse and Mandrake which I have setup as a dual boot along with Windows 7. I have found them to be a bit more forgiving based on what I use it for...

I think most will do ok as long as they can avoid the CLI. However if you plan to get into some of the fancy stuff, know the CLI will make you a God...Windows and OSX also have a CLI...but I can't think of a time you really ever need it unless you are doing something very technical. I use it for example to apply patches and service packs to my office and windows cds. For anyone who just surfs the net, reads email and other very simple Windows-like tasks...any build of Linux will work...but some are more eye-friendly like Mandrake, Suse, Mint and Ubuntu.

However it would be best to test Linux using any free virtual pc like software...VirtualBox is free from the open-source community and Virtual PC from MSFT is also free. And of course if you have a flash drive or spare hard idk lying around you can use those as well. The Linux LiveCD is ok if you just want to look at the OS and nose around...but you really need to install the OS on a drive to really make use of it for installing appz and really testing.

I personally don't find it ready for everyday usage based on my needs, but I am sure someone can work with it and many have.
The main reason I wouldn't adopt Linux personally is the compatibility issue when using Windows software. I just don't have time to hack at making Windows appz work in Windows bc the free appz in Linux simply don't cut teh mustard compared to many commercial based offereings. However if you only need simple to use tools for basic tasks...then you certainly can find appz that will work.

I use GIMP even tho I have Photoshop CS3...why? Because sometimes I want to use simple tools and don't need the power of PS to do a few things.
I also have Open Office and again install for teh same reasons...I use i for simple letters and office related tasks where MS Office is just a bit of over-kill.

But it is good to have the commercial toys for when someone yopu work with uses them and you need to insure yyou have 100% compatibility.

[1longtime]

This article is ancient, but I had to comment: This article is terrible and your tone sucks. As usual, dismiss every concern that a Window user will have with snarky sarcasm. And I'm primarily an Ubuntu power user, so imagine what a Windows user will say after reading this garbage article?


Hardware problems? Windows is the hardware mafia, so naturally they have an edge there. But that doesn't chage the problem: Linux's (particularly Ubuntu's) problems with hardware support is a huge issue. Dismissing it is inappropriate.
Item #7 where "things went honey-nut-loops crazy" is a serious problem too. I'm glad you give your sympathies, but it's far from an isolated problem. Over the past three years, I've had 4 major problems with Ubuntu on three different types of fairly common consumer desktop hardware that took alot of time and technical knowledge to fix. If I wasn't tech savvy I would have been sunk. How can I recommend this to an average computer user? I've had common updates BRICK MY COMPUTER. I'm not a big Windows fan, but hey... at least when I click "Windows Update" I'm sure my machine will come back to life afterward. These are VALID concerns that any experienced Ubuntu user should have.
I'm a huge Ubuntu fan, and continue to use it on my work and home desktops, and of course as a business server platform... but I'm sick to death of reading articles like this with the caustic tone aimed at casual users. So right back atcha: You suck, man. Take your attitude and shove it. You ARE the Linux stereotype, ready to blame the user first.

I can't believe this is a professionally written article in PC World.

[hitokiri]

Man, all everyone on here is doing is complaining. You like Windows and it works for you then use it, you like Linux or something else, use it. People need to quit attacking people who use a different OS, or don't understand another one.
I use OpenSUSE on my computer. I could find no version of Windows that would even detect my hard drives, and before you say I must have weird hardware, I don't. Not only would Windows not detect my HDDs, but it would not detect the drivers on the driver disk. Even Server 2008 which is increadibly expensive. OpenSUSE worked awesome from the get fo and had every driver I needed.
I love using linux as my main OS, and I use Virtual Box for running any windows program I have to. Or I can use wine for things that work with it. I rarely have to use the command line if I don't want to, and there are guis for pretty much anything. I find it increadibly helpful to be able to search for programs in the installer so I don't have to search the internet for them. I actually like using the command line and over the 1 and 1/2 years I have been using Linux (most of that seldomly), I find the CLI very easy and can actually do some things far faster with it.
I have had less problems than I did with windows, and I can do anything I need to/want to. I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they didn't want to use Linux or didn't understand it. It is far from ready for the average computer user, but ironically many of those people use linux everyday and don't even know it. My biggest problem with Windows and Microsoft is that they refuse to follow alot of the standards that have been put into place and so I and other people that want the freedom to use different OSes are stuck either using something we don't want to or just not using what ever program/website/etc that uses MS code.
There are people on both sides that are arrogant and mean and like to berate someone for not knowing how to use an OS. And anyone that thinks there "side" is full of only angels and the other "side" is full of stereotypical arrogant jack-asses needs a wake up call.

[TechieXP]

The only way Windows won't recognize a drive is if your BIOS didn't either. Go lie somewhere else. Windows didn't see it...but magically Linux did? I've never heard of such a case.