People that think Windows is better than Linux..

[vrkalak]

I visit the website DeviantART fairly often, as do many people.
I've even run into some members from this forum over there.

Anyway, DeviantART has a Forums section, with several sub-forums, one being for various Operating Systems.
One of those sub-forums is for Linux/Unix/BSD and another section devoted to MS Windows.

I am usually posting and trying to help out where I can, in the Linux Forum of DeviantART.
Well, earlier today, I went over to the Windows Forum . . . It was like, I was in another world.
It was as if they were speaking different language . . . Viruses, Trojans, Mal-ware, Registry Errors, Degragging.
I was amazed. Have I been away from Windows for that long?
The issues people are, still having, with MicroSoft and Windows-7 . . . I was relieved that I was no longer there.

I was glad, that I had discovered Linux, and no longer have 'those' problems..
Reading about the problems people are having with the new and improved Windows-7 ... the 'bugs' facing Ubuntu 9.10 and LinuxMint-8, seem minor in comparison.

[markcynt]

I was glad, that I had discovered Linux, and no longer have 'those' problems..

For me that's freedom !

[Marcush]

People are taught to use Windows in school, that is why they have to go through a learning curve to use Linux. In a study of people that had never used a computer before, nearly all participants though that Linux was easier to use! Novell conducted the study. Linux is secure and needs nearly no maintenance to keep it running but Windows is more finished even with all of it's anti virus software, defragmenting and so on. Windows can handle graphics cards that the system does not recognize, all system sounds work, compositing does not interfere with games, videos etc.

Both Linux and Windows have their good and bad points. I of course prefer Linux but I can understand why some people choose Windows. Like FedoraRefugee said, It's just an operating system.

I am 150 percent with you I personally cant really choose what is better. Ezpecially since more and more of maintence on windows is becoming automatic. I use both for different reasons. I just cant see why alot of linux users cant drop the LINUX VS. WINDOWS SHOWDOWN and just enjoy what they wish to enjoy besides fighting microsoft is not what makes linux fun, it is the experience of using it.

[markcynt]

I just cant see why alot of linux users cant drop the LINUX VS. WINDOWS SHOWDOWN and just enjoy what they wish to enjoy besides fighting microsoft is not what makes linux fun, it is the experience of using it.

I believe it's because some people are competitive by nature.

I'm one of those people.

I can/will turn just about anything into a competition.

[ej64]

A foreword: My work is in the IT department maintaining some MS driven servers, organizing our external business contacts that are data related, defining and sometimes coding data interfaces, coding some internal tools and so on. Our whole SW architecture is basically MS or Oracle. The excepts are the hosts of our virtualized servers which are Linux systems. Personally I grew up (I'm 45 yo now) with Commodore PET at school and TRS-80 in the early years of my studying and later with MS-DOS, DR-DOS and Windows 3.0 and later. I had some deeper looks into OS/2 (which was one of the greatest OS ever built in my believe, lightyears ahead of Windows at that time) and Linux since kernel < 1.0.

I think a common misunderstanding is that Linux wants to be a "better Windows" (or at least an equal). And that Linux have become more similar to Windows (and works on that point).

Basically Linux is very different. It has a monolithic kernel which means it lacks some flexibility regarding changing hardware but provides some performance and stability benefits. In terms of security Linux is still far ahead of Windows but the latter has worked up to some point using third party SW and using stricter permissions than in former times (at least with the business and enterprise versions). Indeed I haven't had no problems with viruses whatsoever the last few years using free anti virus sw. But my last system at home running XP suffered badly from limp permissions and chaotic sw installations of my two sweethearts ... now with W7 thing are getting better (with Linux there wouldn't have been no such hassles from the outset). MS seems to learn from Linux. At this point It's surely not the other way round.

Software installation isn't worrysome with Linux -- it may have been, but since you can use repositories it's far more easy than with Windows. Just make some ticks to the sw you like to install and give it a go. No crawling the net and surfing to vendor sites here and there. If you use Linux as a desktop system with average requirements it's perfect to you. It's "windows thinking" what makes you a hard day.
On the other hand, if you need very special sw or you have to install newer sw versions (or newer versions of device drivers) than that found in the repos things may become more difficult than you are used to (from windows). In this case you have to dive far more deeply into Linux knowledge to achive your goal. On the contrary the ease of changing device drivers within Windows and the not obvious risks performing those system changes leads far more easily to an unstable Windows system.

GUIs tend to become more similar due to the needs of usability. Of course here and there is some mimikry. Developers use to look how others solve a problem and usually they use APIs and libraries (that are often cross platform compatible) despite inventing the wheel once more. But basically the GUI is quite different from Windows'. IMO one of the worst misconceptions of MS Windows is the Explorer as beeing a unity of the file browser AND the GUI shell. This misconception means a ridiculous dependency from Network and file I/O operations leading to far more stuck GUI sessions, often bad responsiveness and general unstable situations. I this respect Linux sports a far more module based approach. Having several independent subsystems provides at times some compatibility problems but generally a significantly stable system.

I could go on and on ... In the end it all comes down to tastes and needs. If you don't like Linux and prefer Windows the Linux world just don't bother (ok, there are enterprises who bother ... but that's an other story). I use both. And many others do as well. Do whatever you like (as long it's legal) but don't bore us ...

[MrD]

I have a background with computers but everything needs learning and there's only so much time in the day. I did my first qualifications on BBC Micro B's and then DOS. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't really fun at all. Trained as a systems analyst I still shake my head at modern computer systems in businesses that don't have redundancy, and the sheer cost of them! computers for me perform jobs. They need to be built and set up to give the best experience. We don't use most of the features available normally. Solid hardware and nice software GUI's are desirable.

I've just sat down having to show my 60 year old parents the differences from XP to Windows 7 and thankfully they didn't use Vista between! "My Documents" is now "Libraries" and other assorted stuff like that, scaring the hell out of them. The next step for OS's is like Chrome OS. Dedicated, cheap units that don't need tinkering with and intuitive start menus and folders.

Build a limited specced computer with a screen and install a simple OS on it that does browsing/email/IMing/Office and drop the price enough and you'll satisfy most computer users. In fact extensive OS's probably won't sell anymore. Do we honestly think with the rise of linux and more and more dedicated netbooks that M$ will bother to create another OS? It won't be economically feasible Linux will go the commercial route, supplying manufacturers with customised OS's for their dedicated netbooks, etc.

When it comes down to learning how to use a new OS or even just new software, you need instructional steps of so many clicks/menus to enact a function and you remember them, get used to them and get scared of anything different. Everyone has to learn how to use a computer at some point. I remember the jump from DOS to Windows (I had to go back to school and attend an intensive Windows Management course to stop me wrecking the machines I got on!) Coming into linux was a lot easier I think in some areas, but others are harder. I am also finding software outside of the package manager that I want on my machine, to test and maybe use long term. I've had to learn how to install them, sometimes without .deb files which was quite difficult. If only every software creator made packaged .deb files............. But I spent hours reading how to do things and I realise that with linux the reading was of less time than windows. This may be of course down to the higher average IQ of linux users over windows users. Try googling a windows problem and the posters unfortunate language use, lack of comprehensiveness or just simply hardware/software/registry conflicts made a lot of information worthless.

We all know that once linux takeup is a large enough percentage of computer users that the malware writers will shift their target to linux users too. Then we'll see the fun all over again. It will matter less what OS we use then. Unless you take habits into consideration. I like to game occasionally, windows is where that is at currently. I was into the niche gaming of the Reality Mod for Battlefield 2 (will Wine make that work?) I have leads connecting my pc to my tv and hifi stereo and nice video combined with the sound through my X-FI card produce an interesting experience in my lounge! I am currently at university and need to use Office, sound editing software (I'm a linguist), I browse and chat, read a lot of probably worthless information online on newsites/blogs/forums. But it keeps my brain ticking over. The OS doesn't really matter there. I'm more interested in the video output quality (via drivers) from my nvidia 9800gt GPU and the audio from my XFI card! And I want to do things simply and without stress. So I learn the instructional steps, that series of clicks, through menus, to make things run and fill my spare time with entertainment. Geeks should start failing to exist once the market slims down computers to functional necessity rather than the mess it has grown into.

[exploder]

There are some very interesting and well expressed points of view here. Novell once did a study of people with no prior computer knowledge, they had them try using Windows and Linux. Most of the people that participated in the study said that the Linux system was easier to use. I had read that if you know Windows you are at a disadvantage if you decided to switch to Linux, there is some truth to this. People expect Linux to be just like Windows and are disappointed when the find that it is not. There is a learning curve when using any operating system for the first time and people quickly forget that they were not born with the ability to run Windows, they actually had to explore and ask questions. The same would be true with someone coming from any other operating system.

Is one operating system better than another? No, it depends on what you need it for. It doesn't matter what operating system you use, no software is perfect or without it's own brand of issues. Lets face it Windows does some things a lot better than Linux and Linux does some things better than Windows. I know you are thinking, "What can Windows do better than Linux?" Windows can handle an unknown graphics card, Linux will give you a black screen or will fail to even boot. Yes, I had to throw that in because we all know what Linux can do, we are all here aren't we? Mac OS, Solaris, etc have their good and bad points as well.

I did not choose to run Linux because it was better than Windows. I had no problem configuring Windows and could keep it running just fine with no real issues of any kind. I chose Linux because I waned more choice. I can choose the kernel I want to run, desktop environment, default applications, look and feel and the list goes on and on. I am only limited by my imagination. I look at different operating systems all the time, I love to see the differences and the different ideas that make them unique.

Do I like Windows? Yes, because without it Linux would stagnate and be boring. The same goes for Linux, without it Microsoft would not improve at the same rate either. Things would get pretty boring pretty fast without competing operating systems.

[DrHu]

A foreword: My work is in ..

There are some very interesting and well expressed points of view here. ...

I am finding agreement with ej64 and exploder, whose commentaries make sense

• Pointing out some of the differences and the general precept of good and bad in both (Linux and Windows in this case), but it is just as easy to include Apple

An OS is not a lifestyle, it is an OS

• That is despite marketing evidence to the contrary, as both Microsoft and Apple demonstrate time and again..

I am only reminded of Orsen Welles comments in an interview:
That being a movie director is the only job where you can be incompetent and no one will notice for a long time
Since a movie director's only job unless he is something of an actor, something of a camera person..is to call Roll film, go faster, go slower, cut

He probably wasn't much interested in marketing where the sizzle has become more important than the steak; and as we all well know, appearances can be deceiving

[vrkalak]

Where is this dreamland in which Windows just works ??

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/whe ... ust-works/