General discussion


Windows vs Linux

By rkuhn ·
Ok, these discussions are out of hand.

Anytime there is a discussion of Linux vs Windows, without laying down some background, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

For example, there are substantial differences between rolling out Linux in a business environment vs rolling it out to a home user with minimal PC skills vs rolling it out to an experienced IT home user.

I'll start 3 threads to reflect this and let me hear the arguments.

For example, for a inexperienced home user, I don't want to hear about "cheap" printers when it comes to drivers. Let's face it, home users buy cheap printers...that's a fact of life.

Conversely, in a business environment, you do have time, money, etc for a roll out whereas in a home environment, you don't.

Let's agree to some variables. Corporate environments typically have time to train, get support, tweak, whatever.

Home users typically just want things to work, buy cheaper and more generic components, etc.

Let's hear your opinions now...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Drivers and Wireless

by X-MarCap In reply to Wish your post was true

Wireless ethernet was so much easier on my notebook in windows. I actually had to load a CD, reboot, power off, put the hardware in a mini PCI slot, restart, and then work to configure it and the security for it to work on a wireless network.

For the Linux Disktop, I loaded the system. Oh crap the wireless card was identified and it worked as soon as i put in the string for security. Poor comparison. The OpenOfice doesn't crap out like my Office 2003 Outlook does.

I guess there are comparisons. I didn't pay $499.00 for open office. and OpenOffice doesn't lock up, or hang while communicating with the outlook server.

The real difference is that many people won't, or can't read. They can only work with a pretty picture to go with an application(icon). Oh you can get that also on Linux KDE, Gnome, etc. For me Linux is cheaper and more stable. But, I run a network of 300 Unix servers.

Collapse -

Even Microsoft Games

by X-MarCap In reply to Wish your post was true

Some won't run in XP and they were written for 98se

That includes MS games.

Worst of all My Tex Murphy games don't work (sob).

Collapse -


by rkuhn In reply to Even Microsoft Games

Linux users do it all the time, similar to Wine and Cedega.

Use a virtual PC to run all your outdated, crappy games. The VM machine is now free.

Collapse -

Rickk-- I gave up games that long ago.

by X-MarCap In reply to Virtualization

The point is that for Games owned by MS, MS hasn't bothered to keep backwards/forward compatablility.

That is one hting that they have done several time over. That is why "Harry it still sucks." (Harry Chapin's 30,000 lbs of bananas)

Collapse -

simple indeed

by apotheon In reply to Simple Requirements

"I am a Unix user from way back, so I would be happy to run Linux, if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn't at the moment."
I am a DOS user from way back, so I would be happy to run Windows if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn't at the moment.

"I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately."
I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to download and install pretty much any kind of software I could want with the clicks of a few keys or, without a broadband connection, to be able to get it from a comprehensive CD installation set like the thousands of software packages in the archive on the full Debian set. I expect to be able to do this without having to go to the store and shell out dozens or hundreds of dollars every time I want to install one more piece of software on one more computer, and I expect to be able to keep up with the latest version of the software without having to do that all over again, including spending hundreds of dollars again.

That includes games, a development platform more advanced and flexible than some straightjacket one-option IDE like Visual Studio that costs thousands of dollars, industrial-strength webserver software, stateful firewall capability, multimedia that puts TiVo to shame, fully functional office suites, enterprise class database management systems, high-end graphics production software, et cetera, et alii, ad infinitum, ad nauseam -- whatever I feel like installing today, without even having to buy it.

"I don't run an internet connection at home because that lets me keep my PC running fast with no virus checking/etc clogging things up. So, having to download something to get my new game running is not acceptable."
I don't want to have to pull my network cable to keep my PC running fast with no virus checking, et cetera, clogging things up. I'm also pleased with the ability to install any of thousands of software packages from either the Internet or local CDs, at my own option.

"I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy."
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but that's not an argument in Windows' favor.

Collapse -

why not

by Jaqui In reply to simple indeed

actually post how many cdroms are in that full set?
13 @ 650 mb 1 at 430 mb.

that really does push the "no software options" arguement down the drain, far better than even Fedora cores 5 cdrom set version.

Collapse -

In the Matrix?

by FCometa In reply to Simple Requirements

I don't think there is such thing as 'better' in a case like this, speaking in absolute terms. Better for what may I ask? Everybody will give a different definition of 'better', depending on, yes, their personal requirements. There are some things, though, that I would like to point out.

First of all, for a meaningful discussion some investigation may be due, because more than once have I read people still thinking that Linux is no more than a command prompt, to give an example. Of course, these debates are useful to find out things you didn't know... it isn't easy to be on top of the latest in both worlds, and everybody can probably hand out something to learn about.

Second, there are a few phrases that stand out for me in the previous post. The one that specially gets me is the 'no internet connection to keep my pc running fast with no virus checking etc'. The thing with Windows (or maybe even Microsoft in general) is you get to believe that all software is or should be 'Microsofty', 'Windowy'. It makes you forget that other OS'es work differently and have different strengths. But we get so used to, let's say, blue screens, so to believe that all OS'es get 'em. All OS'es don't catch the viruses that are now in the wild. All software doesn't have to be bought (and in a third world country like the Dominican Republic that IS a VERY noticeable difference). Internet browsing doesn't HAVE to be in the big blue 'e'. But we are too used to it. So used to it, that anything different is a bother, too weird. (I joke about it, telling people "you're still in the Matrix"). Paradigms...

At home I've had quite a few versions of Windows, and Linux distributions, too. My two younger children have been exposed to all equally, and use them both regularly. This is to avoid building on them a one-side's-story image of what an OS is like. They know that internet browsing isn't only the big blue e, it's also the red fox.

Last, there is the 'standard hardware' issue. Manufacturers don't care about our religious wars, zealotry, bashing, idealism, call it anything. They only care about how to get me to buy their merchandise. If the numbers say 'the majority of users have Windows in their boxes', they will make their hardware work with Windows. Logical. Of course, other OS'es may be supported, but the main concern is with the most used. Software is the same. So then you see hardware 'designed for Microsoft Windows' (like winmodems). Web pages that don't display or work right without IE. They are very probably not meant to be standard, but to follow where the market points to.

That said, and admitting that in the personal sense I am a Linux buff, I would say that a Linux vs. Windows discussion of who is 'better' depends on what 'better' means to you. What could the strengths of each one give YOU in return for it's weaknesses.

Collapse -

Nicely Put

by rkuhn In reply to In the Matrix?

I apreciate the comments. More of what I was looking for when I started this discussion and before it broke out into a holy war.

For some people Windows probably is their best bet. For others Linux is probably their best bet.

And still yet, for others, using both might be the answer.

Still not clear where I stand. I was hoping to one day be seriously using Linux, perhaps even up to a 50/50 split with Windows, but I just keep having issues and problems.

I'll keep trying contrary to some people's beliefs on here.

Collapse -

can't we all just get along

by relaxdiego In reply to Windows vs Linux
Collapse -

Here's my reply

by Starderup In reply to Windows vs Linux

I have never seen a UNIX or a Linux box crash. Ever. That goes back to 1997.

I would be interested in how many Windows users can say the same thing.

Related Discussions

Related Forums