Windows Vista vs Linux

[ShockG]

Have u ever compiled a recent linux kernel ?

Exactly what I'm talking about. Why should I be compiling the operating system? :/ Am I missing something life changing by buying a ready operating system?
==================
Yeah I suppose you're right about the security. The playing field is not the same and neither are the challenges that each operating system faces.

 

[ubercal]

As ive said before , Dont use linux as a Windows Replacement.While linux can do everything Windows can ,it just harder.

Windows - Use it 4 games , movies , work etc
Linux - use it 4 servers

 

[ShockG]

If that is understood by all linux users why is it then they are always advocating on behalf of linux to normal* windows users? Not many people run servers I think...

 

[neio]

Linux has got plenty of support 4 Hardware.Its even got support for 10GB Lans.Have u ever compiled a recent linux kernel ?

Its precisely because of questions like this that Linux is not used so much in the desktop environment.

 

[Jo-Jo]

Linux

reading all the prev posts I wonder how many people know what they are talking about. I live in a Windows free home, for the past maybe..9 years. never compiled a kernel in my life, I use Office, play Windows games ....all on a linux box that is also used as a router and fileserver in the house.
So what was the problem with linux again?

 

[Bernie]

reading all the prev posts I wonder how many people know what they are talking about. I live in a Windows free home, for the past maybe..9 years. never compiled a kernel in my life, I use Office, play Windows games ....all on a linux box that is also used as a router and fileserver in the house.
So what was the problem with linux again?

Must be dark in your house *TIC*

Sorry couldnt resist.

For sure, linux can do everything that windows can do, but for the average person out there its not as easy to do. And for the average person where productivity is the number 1 criteria I just cant see linux becoming a mainstream desktop option.

Another problem is the use of MS office. 90% of the world use it (whatever the reason is) and sharing and emailing docs just doesnt work with linux. Formatting is never 100% and excel macros just dont work, or they didnt when I used openoffice last. Again its a productivity issue.

I dont mind spending +/- R1200 for an OS (dont know what windows costs nowdays) if I know I wont be spending a lot of my day tinkering in .conf files, installing emulators etc. etc.

I just dont think at the moment that desktop linux will pass the "CEO" or "Grandma" test.

 

[Jo-Jo]

Linux Vs Windows

Passes the wife test..."Is this Linux or Windows that I am using?" Google docs is great and free. passes the granpa test to.
but to each his own. If you are used to particular system and it works for you ...well that is the way for you to go. The days of Windows or Linux Nazis should be past. Whatever works best for you.

 

[ShockG]

Exactly. Even suggesting that Linux has more usability than Windows is turning a blind eye to the truth that Windows is by far easier to use and hence even in a work environment allows more productivity than Linux.

With entertainment being high on many home users lists, Linux cannot under any build or distribution match Windows 2000 let alone XP and Vista.
Linux only plays OpenGL games, of which there are far and few in between. Even then, some don't work because there are missing elements which allow online play, centralized updating etc...

Linux is damn good at what it does and there can be no contesting that under any circumstances. As far as usability and for what many people use their computers for on a daily basis, nothing is even close to matching Windows.

 

[d0b33]

Linux is not harder to use than windows IMO, It depends on what you used to using, if you've used Windows all you life, Linux would seem to be difficult to use, the same goes if you've used Linux all your life.
Windows is meant to be easy and it is, but Linux is different not harder to use, once you get to know Linux you could be far more productive than in a Windows environment

The reason that we are comparing a free OS to one that could feed a family for a year deserves respect

 

[ShockG]

No not really. Something being free is not an indication of its quality.
Windows has to support 1000x more software than Linux, has a much larger user base and has many more services than Linux.
M|S has spent $1BN on an API, not because they just wanted too, but because they were building the best and they did. If we compare linux and windows in this respect then Linux has less than nothing on windows.

That 1 corporation is doing better than an almost unlimited number of developers is saying something.

The elitist and anti-establishment of many linux users is ultimately its downfall for the home user. Instead of asking what people want, the linux community seems to assume what they want is what everybody else wants which is not the case.

 

[kilps]

My reasoning behind using Linux to to broaden my experience and to use an OS which doesn't crash on me all the time, personally I think we only get to these usability issues when trying to do more advanced things (I think installing stuff through Ubuntu's Add Remove Programs has to be the simplest thing ever...)

LOL added security my @ss 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.

Yes but how about using that time to program stuff to infiltrate something which pretty much owns the server market? And tell me - how much do you know about Linux security? I don't that much, but the general opinion I have gathered is that Linux is pretty robust

 

[d0b33]

No not really. Something being free is not an indication of its quality.
Windows has to support 1000x more software than Linux, has a much larger user base and has many more services than Linux.
M|S has spent $1BN on an API, not because they just wanted too, but because they were building the best and they did. If we compare linux and windows in this respect then Linux has less than nothing on windows.

That 1 corporation is doing better than an almost unlimited number of developers is saying something.

The elitist and anti-establishment of many linux users is ultimately its downfall for the home user. Instead of asking what people want, the linux community seems to assume what they want is what everybody else wants which is not the case.

Looks like you missed the point I made in my last post...

It all depends on what you know, if you gave a copy of Windows to somebody who only used Linux their whole life, they would find it hard do switch to Windows.

I myself am a Windows user(I need to be to earn an income) I'm not anti-Windows myself just pointing out that Linux is a good alternative especially for the price

I will never be a Microsoft fan though, especially because of...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Microsoft_Windows_1_01_screen.png

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Yes but how about using that time to program stuff to infiltrate something which pretty much owns the server market? And tell me - how much do you know about Linux security? I don't that much, but the general opinion I have gathered is that Linux is pretty robust

Security wise admittedly it is pretty good. Don't get me wrong - I use both, but Linux predominantly for networking type applications and implementations only. My point though is that for the average user, Windows/OsX makes more sense. ITO of usability and 3rd party support, Linux is still very far behind.

OsX is built on Unix, so there's absolutely no excuse for NOT developing a distro that might appeal to joe average. The way I see it, this will never happen until they get rid of that infernal command line. Sure the command line might have specialist applications in programming and networking for example, however not everybody wanting an OS for general purposes is a programmer. This is something that the general Linux community doesn't seem to understand.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

OsX is built on Unix, so there's absolutely no excuse for NOT developing a distro that might appeal to joe average. The way I see it, this will never happen until they get rid of that infernal command line. Sure the command line might have specialist applications in programming and networking for example, however not everybody wanting an OS for general purposes is a programmer. This is something that the general Linux community doesn't seem to understand.

I suppose this is what Mark Shuttleworth tried to accomplish with Ubuntu. I have a few copies lying around in my room, I think I might try dual booting them with Vista just to check it out.

Installs look easy enough for the "bundled" software which is already in a list for you to choose from. But purely 3rd part applications which you have to download might be harder. I'd like to see for myself.

Any comments on just how usable Ubuntu is?

 

[d0b33]

The way I see it, this will never happen until they get rid of that infernal command line. Sure the command line might have specialist applications in programming and networking for example, however not everybody wanting an OS for general purposes is a programmer. This is something that the general Linux community doesn't seem to understand.

Linux is getting there, slowly but surely...
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/01/10/2045258

For independent software vendors (ISV), one of the major problems in supporting GNU/Linux is the variety of package management systems. However, if the Free Standards Group has its way, the next version of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) will solve that problem by providing an application programming interface (API) that acts as a bridge between the major package systems and software installers. Ian Murdock, CTO of the Free Standards Group, says the solution could be included in the most widely used distributions by early 2008.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Any comments on just how usable Ubuntu is?

My opinion is that it's probably one of the more user-friendly distros, probably the one that people new to Linux should go for.

Linux is getting there, slowly but surely...
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/01/10/2045258

Fair enough it's getting there, but MS almost completely redesigned their API in XP (basing it more on .NET) around 5 years back. They have a 5 year head start in this regard, and 8 year head start with Win2000 if you consider that that's when they scrapped basing Windows on a command line.

First comment after the article seems to illustrate the ignorance of some Linux users.

I hope we don't end up like the Windows peasants (Neutral)
By Anonymous Reader on 2007.01.17 13:32 (#95002)
who are at the mercy of every third-party installer that comes down the pipe. Sure it's "one click to install" but it's a Faustian bargain: you've given a big slice of your computer completely over to Norton or Adobe or Apple or the Ukranian Mafia, or worse yet, Microsoft. "And we're givin' it to ya for free, so shuddup and eat yer spyware, er, updates."

This dumbass clearly has no clue about what he's talking about. Spyware can affect any computer, depending on who the programmer chooses to target. How he managed to figure out even the basics of Linux is beyond me. He seems to somehow think that he's more l337 because it takes him 10 steps to do something that would take a Windows user 2 or 3.

 

[d0b33]

Fair enough it's getting there, but MS almost completely redesigned their API in XP (basing it more on .NET) around 5 years back. They have a 5 year head start in this regard, and 8 year head start with Win2000 if you consider that that's when they scrapped basing Windows on a command line.

5 years is what Microsoft needed, It took them 6 years to develop Vista, and what a disappointment it turns out to be considering what was expected, heck Vista 64 bit still needs work compared to Linux 64 bit which is pretty much stable

 

[ShockG]

And what exactly was expected?
I got what I expected with Vista. No more BSOD, faster system response, added security, increased multimedia capabilities and a fully accelerated GUI.

No it also didn't take 6 years to develop Vista. Vista took a back seat for XP SP2 for about 2.5years. Vista was also redesigned from scratch based on the windows 2003 platform. Also Vista was interim OS between Whistler and Blackcomb, but somehow people took the promises of this future OS and tagged them to Vista which should not have happened.

Either way, as with everything where everybody has an opinion, nothing ever gets done. One click installs for Linux that are promised for 2008 will inevitably not come in 2008 but later.

One thing I'd like to say to the linux punters like the ones quoted in the above post... You are not any smarter because you use Linux. You are not a representation of the operating system and it most certainly does not represent you. Linux has many shortcomings be it you admit it or not, they are there and will continue to be there unless addressed.

 

[Turtle]

That 1 corporation is doing better than an almost unlimited number of developers is saying something.

Linux isn't perfect, but actually I'd say it's 'saying something' just how well a small handful of developers working in their spare time with zero budget for development or marketing are doing compared to a 71,000-strong company that earns 44 billion dollars (about R310 billion) every year to fund its operations.

 

[RichardP]

Windows and Linux have their place - they are good and bad on different aspects of the computing scale.
If you are happy with a 'dumbed up interface' and a system that uses bandwidth to check you are a legal owner, then windows is the choice. If you are a power-user, then I would go for linux.

the M$ brainwashing theory about there are More windows users, hence more security violations is FUD. cummon! a JPEG decoder can be exploited in MS-Paint!
Both systems have security flaws - but Linux/Unix's are designed around multi-user segmentation - Windows has has it stuck on using sticky tape... and badly. How many Operating systems can you expoit the kernel using the internet? On *NIX systems, 99% of exploits put you in to userspace. The windows slogan is quite apt on their attitude towards exploits "Where do you want to go today?"

As I said before.. use the OS that you are comfortable with. but if you have to lock your firewall to protect the NET from your PC (Notice : I didn't say "PC from the NET")-
doesnt that make you think?