Windows Vista vs Linux

M

MrJones

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
945
Reaction score
2
Location
JHB
No real technical info or questions here, so I thought I would post this here, seen as it's the place where you get most of the opinions.

Sorry Linux guys, but having tried various flavours of Linux many times, I always comeback to Windows. I haven't played with Vista yet, but will be upgrading soon. Maybe it's the fact that I have been with windows for so long and just don't have the patience to Learn Linux. If all the Linux Distros want more people to use it, the fact is that they will have to make Linux look more like Windows and feel like it to. And basically trick end users into feeling more comfortable with it, because it will be emulating Windows. Lets face it guys, yes it might be expensive, yes you must pay licenses etc etc, but it works and people like it. Nobody has asked BMW to make their cars cheaper because they are making money from the technology. Yes, MS buys up small companies and uses their technology in Windows, but hey thats business, many companies do the same thing.

In my opinion I will use Windows for as long as their is not a better alternative available.
 
I have been using Linux and Windows for about three years.

At least I don't need to use a programme to emulate Linux on my Windows machine :D
 
I don't see the need for linux to behave like windows. I would rather have my desktop behave in the most usable way to me then be hobbled my microsoft's UI choices.

The general concepts are the same so I can't imagine why anyone would have problems using a modern linux desktop environment.

Linux biggest gain will be in the near future when more and more people decide they don't like having microsoft and the riaa/mpaa decide what they can do with the hardware and software they legally bought.

You can only shackle people for song long before they decide enough is enough.
 
I agree with Icyrus...

I've used Mac OS X a bit and must say it takes the cake so far.

I like Ubuntu's menu a WHOLE lot more than Windows Start -> Programs mess...
 
Microsoft protects their intellectual property more than anybody else because they have a lot more to lose than anyone else...

Linux's biggest problem for me was the inconsistency of the various distributions, the inability to download a program and double click and exe to run as well. I am no coder and I have no need or desire to be one, If I have to download source code to compile my own version of a media player for my Linux build/distro then its going to be a problem.

You can't sell what people don't want. And people want a Windows UI, be it it's because they\we are used to it is besides the point, right now that's what is wanted.

I'm a windows advocate and always have been, I am though aware of the hundreds upon thousands of thing that plague many of Microsoft's past and present operating systems. People are not defending these problems, but are rather saying, despite all of them. It's still easier to use Windows than Linux and for that flexibility they will put up with these problems until something better comes along in this respect. Of which there hasn't been for more than 10 years now.
 
fact of the matter is big companies will use microsoft products because:

Business
a) linux support is expensive
b) linux has no global support structure or partner program
c) ms office is the business standard and no business will train thousands of staff on open office just because the app is free
d) There are more appz for windoze
e) Other standard professional appz use Windoze

Private Usage
a) More games for windoze
b) More applications for windoze
c) When a punter buys a pc windoze comes with it
e) Er.. Windoze appeals to people more then some dodgy 'free' OS
 
In truth, Mac OS X has been the easiest Os I've learned in the last 15 years, I know it and feel comfy with it after only 4 months. Even people who I allow to use my Mac find their way in less than 15 min.
 
Yes, I freaking wish Windows (by default) would catagorise it's menu idea in the Programs location.

Linux has (even in 1998 when I used Slackware) had Audio, Games, Multimedia, etc; sections.

There's no consistancy there, at all.

henkk78 said:
I agree with Icyrus...

I've used Mac OS X a bit and must say it takes the cake so far.

I like Ubuntu's menu a WHOLE lot more than Windows Start -> Programs mess...
Click to expand...
 
I am currently frustrated with Windows to the point that I am considering formatting my HDD, installing some Linux distribution and burning all my Windows install discs.

I just bought a new PC with a Core 2 Duo processor. I wanted to install Vista on my system, but the university I am studying does not support it (I am not able to access the network at all) and my brand new laser printer and TV Tuner card do not have drivers available for Vista. For the same reason I cannot use XP x64. I can use Windows XP Pro 32-bit, but this OS apparently only utilizes one of my CPU cores, so there is basically no Microsoft OS (none meant for home use, at least) that can unleash my PC's full potential.

The driver and software support for XP Pro x64 appears to be so bad (some of Microsoft's own software does not even run on it), I cannot imagine that I will be worse off running Linux. At least Linux support is continuously expanding, while I'd have to wait months and months for Microsoft to do something about their mess.
 
I just bought a new PC with a Core 2 Duo processor. I wanted to install Vista on my system, but the university I am studying does not support it (I am not able to access the network at all) and my brand new laser printer and TV Tuner card do not have drivers available for Vista. For the same reason I cannot use XP x64. I can use Windows XP Pro 32-bit, but this OS apparently only utilizes one of my CPU cores, so there is basically no Microsoft OS (none meant for home use, at least) that can unleash my PC's full potential
Click to expand...

1. It's not Vista's fault that your varsity doesn't support the OS. That's the Varsity, not Microsoft.

2. Microsoft doesn't make laser printers and scanners, its not their fault that the manufacturer hasn't released drivers. You should e-mail the manufacturers and ask when you can expect a driver

3. XP Pro much like 2000 and NT4.0 can utilize multiple Cores or at least CPUs. Everybody else's XP recognizes two CPUs and they can see the load on two CPUs. I frequently as I'm sure many others do to, assign cpu affinity for a numbers of apps in XP Pro and Vista too.

Two of the problems you've described have nothing to do with Windows, the other one is isolated to your particular machine as every other core2 or X2 user out there can utilize both their CPUs.
 
ShockG said:
Linux's biggest problem for me was the inconsistency of the various distributions, the inability to download a program and double click and exe to run as well. I am no coder and I have no need or desire to be one, If I have to download source code to compile my own version of a media player for my Linux build/distro then its going to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Linux's (well at least the Debian camp) answer to this has been package managers... in my opinion these only half work - they are great because they allow for easy updating of programs but it is still a mission to install stuff

Instead what I would like to see is wider usage of .deb files to install stuff but that file should subscribe the computer to a xml feed which will tell the system what updates to download

Personally I have found linux to be much more stable for me (especially, surprisingly, in the wireless area) - I reckon that if enough marketing is done then it will gain popularity :rolleyes: :cool:
 
I just bought a new PC with a Core 2 Duo processor. I wanted to install Vista on my system, but the university I am studying does not support it (I am not able to access the network at all) and my brand new laser printer and TV Tuner card do not have drivers available for Vista. For the same reason I cannot use XP x64. I can use Windows XP Pro 32-bit, but this OS apparently only utilizes one of my CPU cores, so there is basically no Microsoft OS (none meant for home use, at least) that can unleash my PC's full potential.
Click to expand...

Dude even Win2000 can handle multiple cores and cpu's.
 
I can't play online poker in Linux so its windows for me :D

I think there are 2 issues here, desktop usage and server usage. From my point of view and experience, Linux wins hands down in the server category. On the desktop front, I personally perfer windows, and this is also probably a case of "well its what I have allways used" and just used to it.

I have used a couple of Linux distros on my desktop for quite some time like Mandrivia, U/Kubuntu, fedora and actually agree, the different desktops available nowdays is superb. But, like others have said, the lack of a one click install (as good as windows) just makes it that much harder to use, not much harder but just enough for me to keep booting into my windows desktop.

My 2c.
 
IMO (so don't flame me), you get what you pay for. Windows and OsX are both streets ahead of any Linux distro in terms of both 3rd party support and usability. OsX is based on Unix, so there's no excuse for Linux to be any less usable to the average user.
 
Very true...
Problem is many linux users seem to have an inferiority complex and are compelled by some mystical force to tell others just how superior linux is when compared t windows. The fact that "better" is purely subjective is lost to them and for some reason there's this tendency to look down on PC users as stupid or ignorant in some way... :/
Sad really :(
 
The problem to me is that because Linux is harder to use, their users generally have a tendency to think they're smarter than anyone else. I'm an engineer, I could use either if I choose, but I could get alot more work done in Windows in alot less time than Linux. At the end of the day it's about productivity, and you generally get more productivity out of Windows/OsX. Sure Linux functions great as a server, but that's about it. As a personal OS? Nah, still has a lot to catch up.
 
My point exactly.
The tendency to antagonize anything Microsoft is rife within this very same crowd and to be fair, other windows users too.
Unfortunately what many tend to forget is that Windows is the target because it is the biggest and no other entity like it has ever existed before.

One cannot sell the value of an operating system based on its free availability or more importantly on its specific superiority over another operating system. This superior platform must be better* in a way that benefits the end user in whatever they wish to do. It's like many sales people sell computers to unsuspecting customers by promising speed, forgetting that speed is relative and only important if what your do is reliant on the speed of the computer. If not, that speed is lost to the customer and and is meaningless.

If all you ever do with your PC is go on chat, browse a few music and movie sites. Check your e-mail, type the odd document or so, listen to lots of music, and watch movies frequently on your PC. The added security of any operating system (including windows Vista) is not important to you and the specific OS should not be sold to you based on its security features, but how it can enhance or make easier all of the above...

Linux punters fail to realize this, and harp on about the robust security measures in Linux, while failing to address basic usage issues like a one click install as other have said. Why should anyone in 2007 need the command prompt for anything?
 
Last edited:
Linux has got plenty of support 4 Hardware.Its even got support for 10GB Lans.Have u ever compiled a recent linux kernel ?
 
ShockG said:
Linux punters fail to realize this, and harp on about the robust security measures in Linux, while failing to address basic usage issues like a one click install as other have said. Why should anyone in 2007 need the command prompt for anything?
Click to expand...

LOL added security my @ss :D The only reason why it's more secure is because it has a tiny userbase compared to windows. If Linux and Windows had to swap their user bases, which OS do you think would end up being less secure ;) I mean why waste time programming malware for something which 2% of the population uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X