Motoxrdude
Active Member
What do you guys think is better, linux or windows? I personaly like linux since it is open source and has a lot of great programs for it. What do you guys think?
EDIT-And its free!
EDIT-And its free!
Linux VS. Windows
- Thread starter Motoxrdude
- Start date
I've run a few distro here already when dual OSing an old drive used as a secondary. On the current secondary drive I'm still deciding on whether that extra drive space following the 135gb primary storage partition will see Linux or Vista beta. If Linux goes on the distro will have to be chosen from a long list. The critics refer that as the "flavor of the month" when looking at different releases of Mandrake, SUSe, ubuntu, you name it. Although newer distro have been made more "user friendly" to draw in current Windows users and companies now provide Linux drivers for newer hardwares, Linux is still not for the "point and click" crowd quite yet. Being familiar with command prompts and dos along vfat and grub is a little different there.
I've purchased my last windoze. Recently shifted from Kubuntu 6.0 to Mepis 6.0. As far as capability you would have to spend a lot of money to attain what I can do for free with Mepis. The downside of Linux is gaming, and high end video editing. Everything else is has good or better with Linux. Point and click after some initial configuration is already there. Actually I did all my configuration with Mepis 6.0 with the GUI.
Linux still has it's ups and downs as well. For those distros with installers you still have to already be familiar with Grub and a few other things to everything going. You won't find the viruses, adwares, malwares, data miners and the rest of the crap that plagues Windows however. But for those with older as well as some newer hardwares you still to run a few extended searches for drivers to get sound and video cards running properly.
SC7
New Member
Ton of stuff you can't do with open source/linux. It has its upsides over Windows. Both are good in their own way. A debate of this could go on forever. Its all in what you need it for. I will continue using Windows, I personally really don't need linux. Windows runs a little better for me too.
When you start off in a WIN 3.1/MSdos environment you get familiar and far more accustomed to entering manual commands. You don't simply point and click to get things done. Plus the structure is quite a bit different where Linux is often referred to as the "geek's OS" to some degree. One thing that makes Linux out in other ways is the "lack of" minimum hardware requirements as seen with many softwares as well as with Windows to some degree. Another is the type of vfat shell where not only commands are different like those entered at the Grub not MS prompt but the way the gui itself is operated.
SC7
New Member
About the requirements, I like the idea that my software is on the cutting edge, and still supports my system by plenty of power, but yet is not holding me back due to hardware support. What I personally like is Mac OS X and the terminal, or Windows and the monad shell. I think you should be able to point to do what toy want, and have the power of a command line, but that's just me.
What is most difficult when getting into Linux is the need to locate the often generic drivers for video, sound, and the board you are running. There are games that are now able to run on many distros to a degree. The Red Hat distros are geared more towards the server orientated setup rather then the stand alone desktop while newer versions have become more user friendly for the novice. Mandrake, SUSe, and Puppy especially are the more popular for the migration from Windows to Linux.
timothyb89
New Member
You don't get used to entering manualing commands in Linux? I really think it's quite the opposite. Actually, I think that it's the reason is called the "geek os".PC eye said:
Because Linux is open source, it is far more stable as anyone can find or fix bug (unlike Windows where you just cross you fingers and hope the the bug doesn't exist) which makes development faster. Also, (because Linux is open source) the hardware support is better than ANY other OS (and here is another thing trashing Macs
). You can run Linux on just about any computer (you can even put Linux on a Gameboy. Could you do that with Windows?).For the best support, stability, and performance, I'd say go with Linux (even thought I'm booted into Windows Vista; it's just because my X server is having issues)
On any distro you will find a need to use the Grub or Lilo prompt at times. To even load a distro without a specific loader inplace a familiarity with the basic commands entered at a prompt are needed. The main reason that a distro will load and run with more stability is the lack of all of the drivers and services you see incorporated into both MS and MAC. You have to add things like FireFox often after download or purchase of a disk containing a distro. The setup is usually a manual task without an updated installer there. Like I mentioned earlier Linux doesn't see the "minimum requirements" like other OSes. So the limits for running a distro on most systems are almost non existant.
SC7
New Member
But I say, why go through all of this, when I can pay a small amount, and have full support, and no trouble whatsoever. No one can argue that Microsoft has done a tremendous job thusfar, with faults as all have had, and much of linux wouldn't be without MS Windows. They also kept the hardware/software monopoly from possibly being all Apple.PC eye said:
Now you see why Linux often gets the "geek's OS" type of label. If you simply want the ease of point and click MS and MAC will provide it. For an older and often varying challenge for some? there are continual developments going on with the various Linux distros. The one thing with Linux that also differs from Windows and MAC is the need to upgrade to a different version every so many years to run programs and tp keep updated. That's where the phrase "flavor of the month" comes in on the open source OS. In fact there's a poll now going on about who is still running WIN95. The number isn't great. How many stay with a Linux version and see it kept updated? That is a far cry from the now unsupported early versions of Windows and MAC. Try getting support now for the 9X family. 98 was dropped by MS over a year ago.
patrickv
Active Member
Re
Yeah i think he's right.Linux has ups and down.I think they have so many versions that's why.!!!I used only MANDRAKE.I downloaded suse 10.1 and i wrongly burnt the disc (disc1) and couldn't load the package in the setup.Even if you wronly burned windows you still get through the setup (sometimes).
In my point of view windows is better.At least more efficient.
PC eye said:
Yeah i think he's right.Linux has ups and down.I think they have so many versions that's why.!!!I used only MANDRAKE.I downloaded suse 10.1 and i wrongly burnt the disc (disc1) and couldn't load the package in the setup.Even if you wronly burned windows you still get through the setup (sometimes).
In my point of view windows is better.At least more efficient.
SC7
New Member
I still don't see the point why anyone wouldn't want the ease of use point and click, but yet with both monad and terminal, they can still do everything linux does as well. Hell, you can recompile your own Kernel for Mac OS X.PC eye said:
Which just makes it an unneccisary headache more than practical. There need to be less distros.
Yea, usually when a new kernel is released, applications have to be updated to run. This, IMO is a bad thing. This is why there are no games, because a closed source game that was released for kernel 2.4, now doesn't run on kernel 2.6, and that's a great deal of work the manufacturer may not go through to port it up a kernel, thus why very little games are linux native. You don't relaly have to upgrade the distro, if you know what you're doing, just download the kernel source and compile your own kernel. And what I mean by that is, if you're not sure how to do it, don't risk it, or try it on a play around distro first. As for mac, mac sort of has the same problem, version 10.2, released about 2 years ago, does not run a lot of the current software. 10.3 doesn't even run all of the current software, like iLife and iWork 06 versions.
Thats just the distro, and that's just like Microsoft releasing new Windows versions, as you have to re install them. They don't keep patching KDE 2.0, do they?
Actually, it was only dropped this July 11th. They extended it in October of 04 when they found out that 28% of googles searches were still coming from Windows 98 machines.
Personally, I like that the people behind my OS do not waste their time writing patches and supporting an old version I no longer use.
Anyway, linux most certainly has great advantages which I'd list if I had the time. Keep in mind I'm playing the devil's advocate for a moment here, I do that often, you'll find that out, so don't take much of what I say to heart, or as my full blown opinions.
SC7
New Member
Then you really are missing out on a lot of good experience with software. I still prefer Windows to anything, but that doesn't mean I stick to it. On some of your older machines, Linux could actually make them useful. For example, I had a 200 MHz Pentium with 32 MB of RAM, and 2 MB of VRAM, linux allowed me to do all kinds of multimedia on it, video and audio. It's main point is flexibility.jp198780 said: