General discussion


Linux vs Windows - summarised key points

By Deadly Ernest ·
OK so you can all shoot me now. I have been around from before the days they called them microcomputers. We can thank Gates for making the industy aware that desktop style computers would end up everywhere and not just research centres as they thought then. This resulted in software prices dropping dramatically. He has predatory business practices that he seems to have learnt from Thomas Edison. He and MS are the best marketing operation in the industry - bar none.

What you percieve as the best Operating System should be decided by what it does for your business operations requirements - sadly it is often decided on what the person is used to.

Most of the OSs in use utilise different paradiems and thus do things differently - this causes people to think that they are bad or hard to use as they are different to what they know.

Kernel size Linux uses a small kernel and puts everything else outside it to provide better security. Windows has a big as they have put most things in at to make access by them easier. Analogy Linux has a safe deposit vault with one entrance and you need to pprove to the security team there that you have a right to enter. All other banking activities are done in rooms outside the vault. The Windows vault is much bigger with several entrances and most of the work is done in the vault - once inside you can wander about to any of the other security boxes and open them.

Patches - all software needs patches to fix and adjust minor problems. Linux do this by fixing the specific problem within the kernel code or where the actual action code is improperly utilised. Windows does this by trying to glue a piece of cardboard over the hole that used to enter, not by fixing the underlying fault - treating the symptom not the disease. Windows has issued fixes for the exact same problem in OS after OS after OS.

Compatibility - new LInux issues are compatible with earlier drivers and hardware. Windows drivers are valid ONLY for that specific OS and much software is not compatible between OSs. This is because Windows wants to enforce system upgrades to get more money while Linux is aimed at longer usable life spans. Differences in approach is all.

Both OSs can, and have, had problems re installation and that will always be the case. I use both at home and work, I have also used Solaris and Unix. I have never used a Mac but have recommend to some clients to buy Macs for specific application use as the Mac was the better choice for that task. Want a cheap run about buy one, want a good car buy one. Want a runabout OS buy Windows, want a good OS use Linux/Unix etc. But please make sure it will fulfil your needs first.
Dont but a Cadillac when you really needed a Range Rover.

When you analyse everything that has been said these are the core issues of the differences. Much arguement on side issues (about 80% of the threads).

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Au Contraur

by entawanabi In reply to Linux vs Windows - summar ...

Linnux is a very good waldo on top of your OS that is powerering something.

Collapse -


by Starderup In reply to Au Contraur

Waldo on top of OS????

Collapse -

Thank you

by Starderup In reply to Linux vs Windows - summar ...

I have to agree with just about everything you said, especially the security.
Anytime anybody can say with a straight face that Microsoft is a secure operating system, I have to admire them. I couldn't do it.
Macs are allright, but still a UNIX hack.
In order of stability/reliability, I rate them this way.
Bottom feeder - MS
This coming from a guy whose first job was taking support calls routed through Redmond, WA.

Collapse -

Where are the rest of the points?

by NZ_Justice In reply to Linux vs Windows - summar ...

It seems only half done. You seem to only provide key points where Linux is better (but then again a lot of Linux people think that they are the only points). I won't bother promoting windows, to many people just ***** about it, but you have the opportunity to find the good in the bad and present it in your summarised key points. It would of been nice to see some objectiveness, rather than biased towards Linux.

Collapse -

I sorry I took so long to respond but I forgot to

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Where are the rest of the ...

tick the box to monitor this thread. I tried to cover the significant differences whilst also advising that it is really up to the person to settle on their own choice. Apart from the marketting which I stated up front I can not think of anything where Windows is currently ahead of Linux or any other OS.

For a while there Windows was ahead in regards to the desktop GUI but they are now equal. Windows has taken to using a file management system similar to that used by the Unix / Linux camp for many years, they have started to incoroprate similar levels of user security as well.

There are many things that people think Windows introduced to the world that were actual first put out but Apple or many others - they just did not get the marketing push that MS has given them.

If you have some specific examples in mind of where you think Windows is better than Linux or Mac or Unix please state them - it is possible that they have skipped my mind.

Mind you I am a an odd fish in this debate as I prefer Linux and use it where I can but am still posting from a Windows box as there are a couple of favourite applications I have not yet been able to get to work on a Linux install on a Intel 64 Bit syste. They don't work properly on a XP 64 bit install either but they do work some what. I have a few new 64 bit Linux distributions to load and try now and will test them over the coming weeks.

BTW I have noticed some typographical and grammatical errors since I posted the original, and 'yes' I am too lazy to go back an correct them now.

Collapse -

Intel 64

by OnTheRopes In reply to I sorry I took so long to ...

I?m curious about your statement, ?have not yet been able to get to work on a Linux install on a Intel 64 Bit system?. I take that to mean that you?ve had a shot at installing Linux on an Intel x64 but were unsuccessfull and not that you haven?t had access to an Intel x64. Correct?

If that is the case then I am bumming because my daily use PC is x64 and I want to install Linux on that. I?ve been lurking in a lot of the Linux discussions, checking out links posted there and reading and researching. I thought that Mandriva would install but I don?t have a copy to attempt it yet. If you could please tell me what the problems are that you?ve faced with an x64 Linux installation I can dig deeper to see if I can find possible solutions and save time, effort and money.

Collapse -

Yes I have an Intel 64 bit and been having problems

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Intel 64

with installing Linux. I have successfully installed the following on to an Intel 32 bit PC and then not been able to get them to work when installed on an Intel 64 bit PC. In each case I used the DVD that came with the Linux Format magazine or a commercial CD from that maker of Linux. Fedora Core 4, Ubuntu 5.10, Free Mandriva 2006, Mandrake 10 (did not really expect this one to work on the 64 bit), Debian 3.1, and a version of FreeBSD (can't remember which).

Since then I have done some more research and have found out that most have 32 bit versions and 64 bit versions and do NOT supply both on the same DVD. I have recently obtained the 64 bit versions of Fedora Core 5, and successfully installed that and it works well; and Unbuntu 5.10, which I will be trying out soon.

I have found Free Mandriva 2006, Fedora Core 4 & 5, and Ubuntu 5.10 to be very easy to install and use and OK for technically challenged end users to use. My only complaints about them are that because they are aimed at the end user desktop market the completed install requires extra packages or applications to do some of the administrator functions that I would like - such as post install manipulation of partitions.

One word of warning - don't both wasting your money on the Windows XP 64 bit edition, they are not developing that as fully as the patches for the 32 bit ediction and drivers for it a scarcer than hens teeth. Had to harrass MS for months to get a 64 bit driver for my 5 button MS intelli mouse.

If you have not yet bought a 64 bit system and want to, you should buy an AMD 64 bit system as there are way more 64 bit drivers available for that than the Intel - and the 64 bit AMD Linux drivers are the largest group of 64 bit drivers. Mind you I bought Intel as I have had only bad experiences with AMD, but I know others have had the reverse (maybe the AMD chips don't like me as they got the word how hard I work my PCs).

Collapse -

64 bit? I never got the memo!

by OnTheRopes In reply to Yes I have an Intel 64 bi ...

I?ve been reading a lot about Linux and I have never seen anywhere, that I recall, that there?s a 64 bit version! That may have been in the material but I didn?t see it.

I?m going to read up on Fedora Core 5 and find the best place to get it here in the States because I already have an Intel x64. If you got that installed I?m going to give it a shot.

I totally agree with you about Windows x64. MS offered a 6 months trial version for the cost of shipping and I?m glad I didn?t spend any more on it. I got it installed okay but never activated it before I wiped my drive clean after a week of checking it out. The speed/security reviews I?ve read at TR and elsewhere don?t show any advantage over the x32 version.

I appreciate this answer but I do have one more question. What was the installed size after you had Fedora Core 5 working?

I?m planning to install Linux to a new SATA drive as the only OS and I don?t want to spend more than I have to or short myself either. I?ve got 1TB spread over several IDE USB external drives. I'm sure I can devote 200GB or so just for Linux files. That should be enough for my needs unless I get crazy with it. The SATA drive will only be for the OS and maybe a lot of apps. once I get the feel of it. Drives are pretty cheap right now I know but why pay for more storage space than you need? Ok. Technically that's two questions.

Collapse -

I will have to get back to you on that next time

by Deadly Ernest In reply to 64 bit? I never got the ...

I boot into FC 5 - I have a 200 GB SATA drive and have two 60 GB partitions currently with Windows, a 27 GB data sharing partition FAT 32 and a 40 GB partition for the FC 5, apps and Linux only data - did not check how much it used but when I installed it, but it was happy setting a default of 5 GB (including Swap), which I boosted to 40 GB plus 1 GB for Swap.

I did not realise at first that they had a 32 bit and a 64 bit version either, but look at these links for some info. They list Fedora 1386 and Fedora x38_64, same with SuSe and Ubuntu (on its page) while Gentoo as an AMD64 version**133c93bd3fd3d079ce9349a54436

check the drop down box on this last one.

Collapse -


by OnTheRopes In reply to I will have to get back t ...

I appreciate the links

Related Discussions

Related Forums