Everybody knows that Linux is superior, it's safer, faster, doesn't crash because of its stability, the list goes on and on.

Any windows fans here who'd like to convince me that windows is better?


Let the fight begin.

Windows is easier to use (for the newbie), much easier to get support for, far easier to find applications for. Windows XP is more stable then anything I've ever seen.

Linux "security" is an illusion. Less people use it, so less people attack it. Windows makes it easy to attack it.

And although I use XP, I will be switching to Linux soon. With TCPA coming....Windows won't be the place I want to be.

XP is the most stable OS you've seen?! There are Linux computers that haven't been rebooted or turned off in years and still run smooth. Try that on windows XP and it will crash within two weeks.

Windows XP is far superior to any Linux OS I have ever used.

As CornMaster said, Linux security is an illusion.
Linux users, not only are more rare, but are also much more experienced.
An experienced and novice Windows User who keeps update to patchers and makes his own script firewalls will be as secure as he is doing the same in Linux.
The Linux open source is unsafe, quite recently THREE trojan horses were found implemented into open source applications in Linux.

Put a user infront of the automated security system of windows, or infront of Linux. Where will he be more safe? Windows of course.
Where will he feel more comfortable? Windows of course.
Which of the two is more user friendly? The answer is obvious.

I will agree that Windows XP is easier to use but Linux is getting close. Linux security, IMHO, is better than Windows XP. Mandrake 9.0 is easier to install than Windows XP. Red Hat 8.0 is getting closer in installation ease.

Security: MS just doesn't care while on the Linux side you have people that are striving, a lot of them for free, to make Linux to be more stable and secure. MS is just trying to make more money. If you are pointing out holes in programs that are not a part of Linux, like Apache web server, MYSQL, and other programs like that, as being a part of Linux then you are incorrect. Those are add-on programs unlike Internet Explorer and Outlook Express which have been known to have had some big problems.

What about the stability argument? That's important. Linux is much more stable than windows.

It is also much more "thin".

Windows is a fat dude trying to do deliver the papers to the user's hands while running the neighberhood. Sometimes he can faint.

Linux is like a lazy athlete, saying "Look how fast, stable and healthy I am. But if you want your newspaper, you need to come and get it". ;)

LOL good one IceBlaZe. I like that analogy.

hehehe, That's true...

I just had an arguement with a co-worker that has been using Red Hat for the last two years and not windows. He has recently loaded XP up and loves it. He said that Linux and X are buggy. I came back and said that Windows is even buggier. He said that it has been running great for him and also said that after loading a lot of things on his Linux box that it got bogged down. I told him that is the reason why I reload MS OSes ever 3 or so months. My XP system at home is almost unbearable right now even though I defragged the systen recently (which took many hours). I also have to say that X windows has literature all over the internet on how it works and is very configurable compared to Windows' windows system that is completely closed source and MS doesn't say much about it. Does anyone think this might change with the recent judgement by the US gov't against MS for it's monopoly abuses?

I've been using RedHat 8.0 for 2 weeks now, and I think it's great. It's like another step, a completely different thing. I was able to learn a lot of stuff, and though I feel there's a lot more to learn, I'm quite happy with what I've been able to do so far. Yes, my windows XP is nice, user friendly and everything. But I also remember the first time I used a comp, and I thought that windows 3.11 and 95 were so hard to use and to learn. It's only a question of getting used to the way your computer works. As I said, it's a whole new thing, and it's not harder, just different... Personally, I love it, but that's because I like challenges. Computing is not only a "use the computer to do X stuff" for me. The basic of computer is to learn, adapt and to get experience. And linux gives me this. Windows gave this to me in the past too... :D

I'm sorry, but learning to use linux is MUCH harder. It's not just different.

From experience.

I agree with that 100% IceBlaZe. But would you also agree that Linux is easier to use for power users? Meaning that it is more configurable and the command line is more powerful...since it is basically UNIX.

Well it wasn't that harder for me... Who knows, I might be gifted :mischief:

Let's give reason the benefit of the doubt and blame it on how much easier Linux has become :D :) ;) :mischief:

However, I will say that munzy is very wrong in assuming it's the OSes fault that windows is not too stable(except for ME, I WONT defend ME). I have a win95 computer next to me that has crashed only a few times in 6 years...one or 2 blue screens ever and THAT'S IT. It has never been connected to the internet, and as such only runs necessary software. I also have a win 98 computer, connected to the net, with loads of shareware and freeware. Not suprisingly, that comp is much less stable than the other is. I also have some XP machines which are very stable and crash very infrequently. My linux machines are also very stable and my DOS machines(don't ask) never crash. The MAIN problem with winodows OSes is that they are so easy to develop for that everyone and their wet dog makes 400 utilities, most of which have more bugs than munzy's underwear drawer, and distribute them all over the net...to conflict with others programs and so on and so forth....;) Give me an XP machine w/out added shareware vs. a fresh Linux(mandrake or redhat) machine and I'll take XP. Lot's of people go Linux because they think it's the new and cool thing to do..not because of any REAL reason or because it does some tricks that windows can't do.

As for servers, hands down it's linux all the way.

However, I will say that munzy is very wrong in assuming it's the OSes fault that windows is not too stable(except for ME, I WONT defend ME). Well, atleast you were correct about the ME part. ;)

I saw it is all the OS' fault. I don't feel like arguing in depth right now, I am too tired, but the OS shouldn't care how crappy a program and each MS OS has gotten better at that.

Linux/Unix is a very different world than the PC/Macs. Comparing them is not comparing apples and oranges. With OS X, the two worlds have begun to merge. If it weren't for the proprietary HW requirements, and expenses, I'd be using it at home already - the ad campaign for transitioning is good, but it would still cost me way too much to convert from Win98. Windows is great for mail, MS Office, games. Mac is great for video and photo manipulation, non-computer-savvy, and most day to day activity. Unix is great for networking, stability, and versatility (routers, firewalls, file management, back-end servers, etc...).

So, I say there's room for all. I wouldn't want a Jeep in the suburbs, a Porsche in the mountains, or a volkswagon to haul timber. For the same reason, I wouldn't want to be limited to Windows OR Unix OR Mac (OR mainframes, handhelds and embedded devices, supercomputers, or clusters, for that matter).

I've never much understood these arguments.

I saw it is all the OS' fault. I don't feel like arguing in depth right now, I am too tired, but the OS shouldn't care how crappy a program and each MS OS has gotten better at that.


And cars shouldn't need gas to run, people shouldn't need sleep to live, computers shouldn't need electricity to run, everyone should play civ, and I should be a multi-billionare.

NO OS will run every program w/out error. That's absurd. Port all the current windows progs to linux and you've got a "buggy" os. ;)

Lame arguement. Let's not try to improve on things....let's just keep it like it is. One day we will not need gas to drive a vehicle, as much sleep, and we will live longer. Why? Because of complainers like me...and maybe with a little help from the extremely smart people that develop those technologies. ;)

Lame arguement. Let's not try to improve on things....let's just keep it like it is. One day we will not need gas to drive a vehicle, as much sleep, and we will live longer. Why? Because of complainers like me...and maybe with a little help from the extremely smart people that develop those technologies.


I'm not saying we shouldn't improve them. Please re-read my post and then reply again ;)

:D

You are right. You said nothing about improving them. :p

Interesting article on the hackablity of Windows and how MS is tryingto ignore it: http://www.astalavista.com/library/basics/guides/Next-GenerationWin32exploits.htm

Well, I hate computers crashing, freezing, and so (well, who doesn`t? ;) ). A fabric PC without any custom addition works obviously always fine with every version of Windows OS.
I have built up my PC myself though and that combination somehow wasn`t the stablest (even if at that moment, ~3 years ago it consisted of all the best hardware purchaseable at that moment). That brought me into testing out various OS`s.
Windows 98 was my old standard OS and that piece of **** crashed a half of the applications, froze for shorter or longer periods (6 or 55 seconds) and then went on - pretty irritating with phone-internet. Even after formatting and reinstalling windows the problems came back.
Quite soon I started with Linux. In double-mode first, An old Corel Linux 4.x IIRC. the LILO wasn`t able to overwrite win 98 though and starting from disk took too much time.
Then redhat 6 and later 7: Both unable to recognize my ISDN-modem and no linux drivers available. Bought a new modem - linux compatible - still, no work. Also here the LILO didn`t seem to work with win 98.
Mandrake 8.2 then - finally, a working LILO and even (sometimes) I was able to connect to internet. But after trying to update my files to newer versions of software the installation always got corrupted and I could not reinstall. Also, the thing even crashed (froze), sometimes, but still... Finally, after I had to replace my monitor, linux wasn`t able to recognize the refresh frequency anymore (older monitor). For windows at least I was able to change it manually, for Linux not (or I didn`t knew how).
Then I got Windows XP. And that darn thing, against all my negative expectations, even seemed to work! I had some small problems with networking but further it crashed just a few times in months! How hard I wanted to find other things wrong with it I couldn`t (except the prize obviously).
Well, that obviously ended the experimenting with linux for now. I was ready to take the harder usability of linux, to forget about using a lot of windows applications (hardly anything works with wine) and to invest in other hardware to become compatible with that OS but I never received in return what I wanted: stability.

A moving arguement from Kasperus to be sure :)

I guess that brings out the moral of this thread: Whatever works for you, is probably what you should use ;)

Sorry to all Linux-addicts, but WIN wins!
Linux is to hard to learn and it doesn't compensate the effort.
I like that you exist (to give Ms some feeling of competition), but I'll not use Linux in the next 10 years.

Face it: MS will have the BIG part of the cake for a loooooooong time.
And I'm an happy Ms/HP/Compaq costumer :D

I use both Windows XP and Linux Red Hat 7.2

Windows XP is the best windows ever: very, very stable.

Linux: Much more powerful that Windows if you know how to use it. I know all these shell utilities, the gcc-gdb, and so on :D

And all the free utilities that work well. Linux/UNIX has that going for it.