There's one reason I keep Windows XP on my laptop and that's to "play" Flight Simulator 2004 and Flight Simulator X. I've installed Ubuntu Linux on 2 of my machines at home (as I can do everything I want to do with Ubuntu and for free) and may go for the dual-boot option on my laptop and boot to XP only when I want to use the sim.

With the launch of Vista, would people be more inclined to "upgrade", or try an alternative, such as Linux?

 

I dumped billy's windows crap about 5 months ago, I don't have any computers with windows now and after learning about Linux and getting used to it I will never go back to windows. Ubuntu is far superior to windows.... no more BSOD's and having to reboot all the time. Ubuntu on a bad day out shines windows on a good day every time.

 

I'm actually trying to determine which one is best, rather than being a "Linux fan boy" lol.

Please explain why Windows is better.

 

Almost everyone in the 'linux-is-better' camp are people who have extensively used bot windows and linux (I am too), while most in the 'Windows-is-better' camp have never tasted anything beyond (better than) windows. Does that say something ?

 

For every day use, Linux isn't that much harder to use than Windows. Yes, you have to do *some* command line tweaking, but I'd bet that that time is pretty much equal to the time someone spends wrestling with a bad app install or driver. And with one exception that I can find (NNTP binary robot) Linux has an application that matches anything Windows can offer. Often built in. As soon as I feel more comfortable with the commands, I'm switching for good.

 

Most people that say Linux sucks have either never tried it or have never learned to use it.
All the applications I use in Linux are totally free and work flawlessly.
Unlike Windows, I do NOT have to keep rebooting my PC when I install new applications, I do not have to search the web for applications, there are many thousands of applications ready to install from an install manager.
In 5 months my computer has never crashed!!
I use my computer to record TV programs direct into mpeg4(xvid) as well as all the normal stuff you may want to do on a PC.
I used Windows XP until 5 months ago and I am now running Ubuntu 6.10 and it installed in a fraction of the time that windows takes and is a lot more stable.
You can install Ubuntu and never use the terminal prompt at all if that is the way you want it to be.
Linux allows you to just use it, but if you want to get your hands dirty playing around with the finer points of the OS then it allows that as well.
To call Linux a toy just shows a total lack of understanding of the power of Linux.
75% of the worlds super computers run on Linux.
The top two super computers both run Linux.
Go Figure.

 

It would be wonderful if you could tell me how an OS that costs many times more and forces its users through countless monopolistic hoops could possibly be better.

 

You've got all of your statements skewed, koth. Microsoft does not dictate hardware compatibility that's more of Macintosh's style and even Macintosh is easing it's grip on that lease.
It is up to the hardware manufacturers to produce drivers for the operating system. Most manufacturers have signed contracts with Microsoft in order to put the “Designed for Windows” label on the box. This contract states who and what the manufacturers can supply drivers for. I have yet to see such a logo on a wired network card and the cds/floppies that comes with these cards have drivers for OSs that I thought had died out long ago! Open source developers have to find out how to control the device so they can write their own drivers. Some manufacturers do release the specifications for their hardware which makes life easier for open source developers, most simple refuse to. Fewer still are the ones that actually provide a driver. The two big ones that stick out are nVidia and ATI. nVidia's driver is top notch and is equivalent to their Window's driver. I've never managed to get ATI's driver to work so I can't say anything about their's...oh wait, I just did.

Your preference on Windows for gaming is the same misconception as before. Windows does not decide what platforms a game will run on, the game developer does. Should a developer decide to use DirectX (which almost all do) you slam the door on both the Mac and Linux. Without completely porting the code to OpenGL the game will be effectively labeled windows only. Though it seems Mac has some software that allows DirectX games to compile directly for Mac with minimal porting. OpenGL is finally starting to pick up more and more in games, in response to this Microsoft has pulled a dirty-under-the-table move with Vista (this is where my seething hate for Vista started) and provides a vanilla OpenGL 1.4 (with no extensions, including the 1.5/2.0 ARB extensions) with Vista. Which means all OpenGL features provided by Graphics cards will be left unused. Even onboard cards support most of the 1.5/2.0 ARB extensions to some degree. That give you an idea of how dirty this move is? Even the crappy onboard cards are negatively affected!! Then to add salt to the injury OpenGl is only provided as a API layer ABOVE DirectX! This effectively makes OpenGL on Vista useless. This will force game developers to maintain separate branches for DirectX and OpenGL. Which will in turn force many of the developers to drop OpenGL completely. To top things off with games on Linux, Microsoft owns (got that OWNS) the patent to OpenGL and have for quite some time! With OpenGL the biggest competitor (and only to my knowledge) to DirectX they can cripple both Linux and Mac, as both use OpenGL heavily, by simply sending “Cease and desist” letters.

I'm getting a $2500 laptop with Vista on it ONLY because I won it at the “Ultimate Celebration” celebration. I went to that to finally see Vista in action and walk off with as much free stuff as allowed. The only thing stopping me from doing a YouTube broadcast for “Smash my Vista PC” is that I have other plans for this laptop. Though, I'll admit Vista looks awesome but if looks actually mattered and made an OS “better” I'd have bought a Mac already. I admit it use XP quite often and have finely come to prefer it to Win98SE but the day that Windows XP no can longer boot itself on my hardware will be the day I no longer use windows. I shall forever more be a Linux only user. Just remember that Microsoft does not have compatibility right they have being a monopoly right. This in turn gives the impression that they have compatibility correct.

Don't worry I've had this debate with a co-worker who shares much of your opinion and it was actually he that pointed me to this debate. I will catch hell from him tomorrow I am sure. It is Microsoft's business Ethics have forced me to look else where for my computing needs. I have found such a place with Linux and I try to avoid Windows as much as I can. This has gotten me labeled as a Linux Fan Boy and maybe I am. I will not, however, for Linux upon you. I merely wish to educate you on why Linux is in the shape it is in, why improvement is starting to look bleak, and how things are not quite as they appear.

I'm glad to have found Linux and it will for ever hold a place in my heart whether it flourishes or dies into obscurity.

 

Try a recent Linux distro like Ubuntu, Mandrive, Red Hat, Suse and you'll find that all of these are just as "pick up and play" as windows nor do they have this "dependency" on the command line interface as you claim. Any decent graphical distro doesn't either for that matter.

I'll give you the dependency for the CLI with source compiling but atleast you have this option with Linux.

Linux has precompiled binaries too, just like Windows exe's. Check the repositories of what ever distribution you use all of those are precompiled binaries or exe's as they are called on Windows. Btw: Windows does not provide exe's for you the programmer of the specific program you are using does. Blame the lack of "exe's" for Linux on the programmers not Linux itself. Not to mention due to the ever changing nature of Linux providing binaries for it are difficult to say the least. To counter this growing problem there is software out there that counter acts this by providing a GUI to do all of the work of checking dependencies and compiling for you.

 

Linux; just because Windows is like a dirty whore full of STDs... STDs being Spyware and Viruses, ofcourse.

 

This is because anything incompatible with XP simply won't sell. If linux was dominant, the situation would be reversed - everything would be compatible with linux.

As more people switch, vendors will realize how important Linux support really is and ensure that their products support both. This is helped by the fact that Linux drivers will be written for free by the kernel devs - so it will cost very little to tap into a whole new market.

 

You mistake popularity with an extensive marketing budget. If the makers of Linux had the resources to market it as extensively and Microsoft does, what do you think would happen to the market share?

 

1. You're correct in this regard, however free means more choices, and more choices means that SOMETHING will be better.

2. Lets walk through a typical application installation on window and Linux:
Windows: Insert CD or download the software, Launch Installation software, answer questions related to the installation, restart computer, launch program.
Linux: Open your package manager, find the program to install. click install. No restarting required, no extra steps required to download the software, the manager does it for you. Updates are also managed through the package manager.

3. Perhaps crashing is the the wrong statistic to measure. If you put two computers next to each other, one with windows, and one with Linux, let them run for 6 months to a year then check their uptime, on average, Linux will have a higher uptime than windows. windows requires restarts a lot more often than Linux does.

4. This is a moot point.

5. Look at a corporate environment where you have 100 computers that need their OS installed. Linux would be done in a fraction of the time that windows takes.

6. So has Linux. Even though it is more accessible, does not mean you need to rely on it to do every day tasks. Window managers such as Gnome or KDE create a viable GUI interface that can do the majority of tasks required for every-day computing.

7. You're right again. The majority of Linux users will never modify the kernel code. However, the ability to do so has another side effect. To upgrade to a new version of the OS, it is possible to recompile the kernel and replace the existing one on-the-fly. With windows, this requires purchasing a new version of the OS and upgrade or reinstall the OS fresh.

8. Again, you are right. both operating systems have their places, different pros and cons, and different strengths and weaknesses.

9. The point on super computers running Linux vs windows may be a moot point, but i believe the original authors point was that Linux is highly scalable and can be used (or adapted) to many different hardware architectures easily (or easier than windows). Why do you think the PS3's cell processor already has Linux distros running on it?

 

Linux isn't prone to crash every time a flawed application goes kaput. Linux isn't locked into a single partition format (or two, I guess). Linux isn't stuck with a bloated and basically useless "Windows Explorer." Linux isn't full of DRM restictions.

Windows is.

 

You are correct in that windows has a vast amount more users vs. Linux. But why is that?

In 2001, Microsoft spent over 1 billion dollars on marketing for Windows XP. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269032.html) This translated to over 17 million sales of Windows XP in the first two months after it was released. (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/jan02/01-07xpmomentumcespr.mspx)

On the other hand, Linux has next-to-nothing in its marketing budget. Being a free operating system, the companies that produce it receive all their revenue from paid support contracts to companies that adopt their product.
(http://www.linuxforums.org/misc/who_is_marketing_linux.html)

I propose this to you:

If Linux and Windows XP switched places and Linux received the billion dollar marketing budget, Linux would be the more widely used operating system.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The "popularity" of any commercial product can be directly correlated to the amount of money spent on marketing for said product.

Your argument that if Linux were the more popular operating system, that it would be plagued with viruses, spyware, and the like is based on a misunderstanding (or so I assume). Windows has probably a few hundred developers building and maintaining it. On the other hand, Linux has infinitely many developers building and maintaining it. If a security hole or vulnerability were to become known, the Linux community itself would mend the hole and a patch would be released in a matter of days, if not hours (as is the case with all open source software). Compare that to Windows, once a vulnerability is discovered, it takes Microsoft a whopping 6 months to a year to patch it (on average).

 

Okay,
Windows comes to me on a boot disk and also on a fresh install. The boot disk is where windows has everything that I ever need to run, but has so much that it doesn't need. It comes with AOL, and that is a pain to really remove. And then it also comes with already working things, like the drivers. If it's not a boot disk, guess what, you can't get all of those drivers out of the box, but they are easy to install if you know what and where to look.

But linux comes with many flavors, which is both a curse and a blessing. I prefer Ubuntu, but I have tried others as well. Ubuntu comes with most everything, but it is no way close to the boot disk of windows. But, there are machines with everything set up like windows has, so a tie there. It is a pain to get all the drivers of Ubuntu up, like the graphics card of ATI. Well, I run a script, and it served all three of my comptures well, but by hand it does take some knowlage of the console. Linux wins this one, but barely.

Windows has so many games created for it, well, that's if you are from the US. Go into any store, and they are windows biased. But Mac has no games, and linux doesn't do that bussiness that well. So microsoft has many games to its advantage.

But linux has a great emulation software called Cedega. I have had a few issues with Cedega, but the community helped me. I had to have it run with no shaders. (Windows wins in Shaders for ATI). But, I am able to run every single one of my windows games, with a little difference in the FPS, sometimes noticeable in the game, but only in one of the thirty games. I can even run some games that Windows has many issues with, like my KOTOR. But I love my Half Life 2 on my computer, or even Dawn of War. Another Tie between the two.

Linux is a big target out there. Okay, not for Desktop Users. But Linux is a great server, one becaue it's free, and two because of the uptime. I know many servers that run linux, like Google, my work... and the list goes on. I know of Windows too, but that costs money, and that doesn't include the free support that linux gets from the community.Linux has more of a reason of being hacked, and it can because of the software, but it can recover because the way Linux is designed, it won't kill the OS.

Now, viruses exist for all of the computers. Linux beats all, in the lab and the field. There are less than 100 viruses for Linux created in the labs, and none of those are transferable without some purpose of sending a virus. Linux is based on the oldest OS, Unix. So is Mac X, hence the stability. Linux is open, and the hackers can see the code. Well, so does your neighbor, and another guy, and they patch it before the hacker can get past several comptures. When it comes to patching and anti-hacking, linux is one of the greatest because you could fix it if you wanted to.

Linux has a graphics like Aero, but is free to get. Linux uses less of the computer, which makes it more efficient. Linux isn't the greatest for the User, but it is making its way there. But it is the best server, and bussiness OS, because of Price and set up and forget. Linux is a pain to get programs working, but I get them running. Windows, well, if it doesn't work nothing you do can make it work. If you want an OS that doesn't cost, you want to change, or even are fed up with installing Windows, or working it, Linux might be for you. Mac X is pretty, but linux can do everything it can. Windows has .exe, but that can lose your OS (like many of the software and viruses), and also is already installed on most Desktops. Linux is out there, it's free to use, and if you don't like it, you didn't lose anything. Windows and Mac cost, so they aren't anywhere close to Linux in price. Linux is 300$/0$ times better than all when in price, and it's getting better, and already it can fight the two.

 

I'm definetly a linux fan, and this post had me laughing at Window's "compatibility." Alot of people fail to realize that versions of linux can be run on pretty much any electronic device available (cell phones, xboxes, GPS, oh and computers)

 

The arguments you give against Linux tell me you haven't actually tried a Linux distro within the last five years. As far as drivers go, if you can't do it yourself, either a quick trip to your device manufacturer's site or the support forum of the distro in question will solve the problem 9 times out of 10.

Which puts it on par with Windows, actually.

And I don't hate Bill Gates. But why pay for quality when you don't have to?

 

I have my computer dual-booting Gentoo and Windows XP, personally, i prefer Gentoo. It allows more customization, and thats what i like. It runs all my programs fine, generally better than windows. hell, the only reason i keep XP arround is for games. Once developers get on the ball and make their games fully Linux-compatible, out goes XP.

 

might i cite GIMP for graphics artists running linux? it is as good, if not better, than photoshop, and costs much less($0 :D)

 

I could list several businesses that use Linux, starting with Google, the most popular search engine in the world.

 

You don't buy them. You download them. How about actually LEARNING something about what you're arguing against?

Get yourself an ISO. www.ubuntu.com

 

And how, exactly would you come to this conclusion?

 

Although I disagree with you in that the current Linux kernel is way more stable than you think, I respect that you have actual experience in both OS's.

 

Less knowledge, because MS keeps so much from you. Advanced options? "Wow! you changed the Window theme!" No, advanced options would be hacking the kernel and redistributing it. Try that with Windows.

Don't even get me started on customization!

 

I quote http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linux.html

"Even so, Linux clearly is by far the top choice for high-performance computing. Meuer reckons Linux powers 301 of the 500 top machines, compared to 189 on Unix, two on FreeBSD, a Unix variant, and one on Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Windows. (Seven machines are categorized as "other.") "

This is because Windows tells you what is your computer. It doesn't let you see inside it or let you know what's happening to it. he just says, "I'm your computer, and I'm fine".

But, as you might infer, the companies using supercomputer don't want that a generic OS tells them what's happening with their computer, they want to know what's exactly happening inside, how optimize it and what they can really do with that machine.

Linux owns Windows in supercomputers and in servers, desktop computers are the next step.

 

I wait for the day Linux is recognized by all as a separate and independent OS and not considered a windows replacement and not advertised as such. Linux is not an open-source version of windows. If try Linux expecting it to be like windows yet better, you will never be satisfied.

Whats even worse is that the same people come to linux expecting the same on demand customer service they had for windows. You (most likely) received your OS for free, no one owes you anything, people on (most) forums are helping you out of the kindness of their hearts.

I'd prefer if the Linux community remained a small niche. For us community members it means less nagging on our forums and more expertise to go around.

but preaching Linux like its a windows replacement is wrong, and unproductive

 

"There simply isn't enought professional level software for Linux yet."

Says you.

"It's totally unusable by i.e. graphics artists"

Wrong.
http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Graphics/Image_Manipulation.html

"and 3D modelers."

Wrong AGAIN.

http://www.linux.org/apps/all/Graphics/3D_Modelling.html

 

*windows is better, because of ease of use and compatibility.*

That is a horribly weak argument. Ease of use =/= Superiority.

Manual transmissions are more gas efficient and are capable of greater speeds than automatics. Would anyone argue that automatic transmissions are *better* than manual? No.

 

Linux is now very user-friendly (if you use a distribution like
Mandriva or SuSE), has always been extremely secure and stable
and runs a lot of neat software. If you want to pay $300 for
DX10 and a few nice desktop effects, get Vista, but if it's
speed, stability and security you're after, go for Linux.

 

"On top of this you have to see how difficult Linux is to set up. It never has the drivers you need and because of this, you cant get online to download them, so you still have to log into windows to download them, and switch to linux to install them, in a very inefficent way I might add."

You know what you just described? Every Windows launch EVER.

 

No they don't run on Linux.

They run on Unix, on which Linux is based.

And you'd be surprised how many tech based businesses use Linux.

And BTW, in France, Parliament auto maker Peugeot Citron are switching from Windows to Linux.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9524633069.html

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6138372.html

Try doing some research before spouting off such easily debunked bunk.

 

linux operating system was the system from which microsoft based windows and windows sucks linux is so much more reliable

 

Phew. I was about to say Windows was better for me but just stopped myself because I was thinking application wise windows is better for me. This debate asks what OS is better so I would have to say Linux. At least that's the way I read the question.
This is of course in general as I have not tried Vista or numerous variants of Linux but from what I used before, Linux won hands down. However, I use windows because of the applications it offers that work faster. Strange but true. :-)

 

It is a huge misconception that something that is true has to be deficient in some manner. Firefox is probably the easiest example to think about to understand this. Despite (or because of) being opensource, it is way ahead of IE, even after IEs attempt to catch up with IE7.
As far as time is concerned, you would be amazed at how much time you save when you dont have to reboot, clean your registry, defrag your disk, and run virus scans so often.

 

Better support for ANY hardware ! You should read this http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9325931427.html !

 

Plug and Play works for linux as well, (i think ubuntu has it running from a fresh install).

As far as games, you've got wine, and cedega(if you wanna pay).

UT2004 has been ported over to linux, more games are coming out on linux.

 

You know what's also funny is that a number of these "Linux fan boys" are making real arguments to support their points, instead of merely asserting their absolute dominance using horrid insults. What in the name of Linus are they thinking? Thank you, ngsayjoe, you have made me see the grievous error of my ways.

 

And yet, with all this "custizability", I've never seen the option to tell it to stop blue screening. Could you perchance direct me to it?

 

Linux just sucks?? Gee you may want to tell IBM that. They build the worlds fastest SUPERComputers and they run Linux on them. Roadrunner the fastest computer to date is running Linux. The DOE uses Linux to manage the US nuclear Stockpile. I guess they don't want a windows Bluse screen of Death when they're working with Nukes. Even Google uses Linux they call their version of it Goobuntu. If you want to play games windows is ok for kids, But when you need a serious OS you need Linux.

 

Dual booting OS is a great way to get both

 

what do you call "advanced"? Features like one fine morning it decides not to boot up, without you even touching the settings? or one fine day, you audio driver becomes corrupt without you even playing songs that day? or someday, an autorun.inf malware infects your system and creates an executable in every folder on your system? Ya, pretty advanced, It has the AI to screw itself...

 

It's funny to see all these Linux fan boys praising how great and user-friendly their toy OS is. In reality, Linux just sucks, open-source sucks too. Windows rules.

 

Windowvs Linux - which is better?

I suppose a better question is: better at what?

I prefer Windows. To a large extent, that's because I really don't mind paying for software. I like having a more polished program and paying for it, then have a free 'immature' program.

By and large, it comes down to how much you value money over time. Linux DOES take more time to set up, and usually requires a greater investment of time in maintenance. Windows has its own problems, but I at least have never had problems with viruses/etc.

 

Windows requires less knowledge to use, yet still has extremely advanced options and custizability available.

 

Hardware support! Painless installation of ANY hardware, stable drivers, real plug&play no matter which company produced the hardware.

You don't have to wait for drivers for your favorite network, graphics, sound, tv card or additional laptop functionality. It's just out-of-the-box solution!

 

As a staunch supporter of open source software, this pains me greatly. Microsoft is 'the Enemy' as it were, but it has got one thing right, and that's compatibility.

Not neccessarily backwards compatibility, but with anything released since XP, it pretty much just plugs in and works.

And that doesn't even touch on my personal reason for picking Windows: games.

I know that support is getting better on Linux, but it simply isn't up to par as yet. Until I can walk into a shop, pick up any PC game from the shelf and have it work on Linux out of the box, I will not switch. Pretty much everything I can do on Linux I can do on Windows, maybe not with the same level of control on the lower level of the system, but it gets done.

Linux is better for some things, but the almost complete lack of support for commercial games is a massive dealbreaker.

 

While im a huge linux user, windows (vista) is a better OS. Linux is linux. Its a bare bone open hood os written back in the 90's. Sure, you can pile on the apps and packages and it might compete with windows, but at this point you have lost what linux is all about. For what it is, an open source free OS for people looking for a technical challenge, it gets the job done. But it doesnt even come close to 2000/XP/Vista.

 

Windows Is pick up and play it doesn't have the need for you to know how to use the cmdline unlike Linux's dependency on terminal to compile source, windows does this for you exe's.

 

for me, windows is better because it has way more support. if all that software was running on linux or mac then they would be better. an OS is just a platform.
whats better is where the people feel satisfied. where they meet their needs.
my needs are met at windows, if yours are at linux please use it.
besides there was only one OS that really captivated me, and that was amiga os :)

 

well i am with open source and i know linux is great for developers and hardcore computer users

but still i will vote for windows cause it is easier for normal user to use it

i am not saying that without experiance

i am trying to use linux for the last two years and still couldnt configure and install my analog modem driver in it yet (well i didnt gave it total concentration but i have other things to do as well) and modem driver installation and configuration do not take all that time in windows!

 

These Linux Lovers seem just to be people who are too tight to pay for quality. The only reason windows is less secure is because it is so widely used. People target it because that is where they can get the most information. If everyone switched to linux, it would be in the same position as windows, except it wouldnt be able to cope. They just don't have the resources to deal with these types of problems.

On top of this you have to see how difficult Linux is to set up. It never has the drivers you need and because of this, you cant get online to download them, so you still have to log into windows to download them, and switch to linux to install them, in a very inefficent way I might add.

I want to know why everyone seems to hate Bill Gates so much. He was in the right place at the right time with the right product. Plus the fact that he donates billions to charity.

 

You seem to miss the point, it is only vunerable because of its popularity, and it is popular because it is a better OS.

 

Windows, the ever expansive platform will almost always be better than any linux distribution..

MAJOR development companies always release a version of thier software for windows as it is a everlasting buisness platform..

When i buy a piece of hardware from PC world or wherever, I almost always know that it will work on my system when i plug it in....

This question as windows is always advancing and so is linux, If linux does ever become mre advanced and beat windows, It will not be in the near future

 

I have used both operating systems, Windows more frequently but do have experience in Linux, and still consider Windows to be superior, mainly because Linux simply is not mature enough for the desktop market yet in terms of usability. Ubuntu is a large step forward, but still isn't there completely.

The hardware recognition in Windows beats Linux hands down, as does the range of programs available. Sure, there are a lot of packages for Linux, but to be blunt, there is *so* much more available for Windows. Games might as well be nonexistant for Linux.

Thats in the desktop market though. I firmly believe Linux is the dominant force in the server market, and will continue to be. But since the majority of users are in the desktop market, I still consider Windows to be the better of the two.

 

There simply isn't enought professional level software for Linux yet. It's totally unusable by i.e. graphics artists and 3D modelers.

 

1. Free does not mean better.
2. Software Manager? Who cares when most people simply use the same half dozen apps and never have a need to install more applications.
3. In 5 months my Windows PC has never crashed either.
4. There are several software PVR solutions for windows that allow for recording to xvid.
5. How often do you reinstall your OS? Why is installation time such an important metric? Most users go years between OS installations. What the difference between 20 mintues or an hour? Not much.
6. Windows has hidden the command prompt for a long, long time.
7. I'll give you a point for Linux allowing for tinkering with its underlying code. But, lets be honest, only a very small percentage of the computer using population cares about this feature.
8. Linux is a toy. Thats not a bad thing. Linux is Lego's Mindstorm and Windows is Linkin Logs. Both have their places.
8. And? Lamborghini's are must faster than Honda Civics, but Honda sells a lot more Civics than Lamborghinis. Linux may be faster for supercomputer, but again it is such a small section of the computing world that I don't believe is has much merit in the overall debate.

 

Absolutely nothing. Linux is just a pain to use. It is anything but user friendly, but whichever way you cut it, Windows is more widely used by a long way.

Lets define popularity shall we:

A person, action, decision or thing becomes popular if many people like or use that entity/object.

You may want to get a better grasp on the english language.

 

Linux is useless to the average consumer.

 

i have tried something to let my little cousin to use linux it was easy she says( as long as it was in the gui with no console)
windows is a little more hard but it find more games so she deside windows
so i say user friendlyness(After setup) linux
program database(wih games) windows

 

I mean common this is an easy question 'windows vs linux' Who has more poularity? Windows. WHO HAS more user friendly? Windows. Who has more programs/applications available? Windows. Which has a better interface? Windows. LOL I've never seen a Linux in my life, I mean where do you buy those? They're going to become extinct one day, just give up they won't have success in the market. Some don't even know what a linux is

 

ARE YOU NUTS? 75% of the worlds super computer run on linux? YOU HAVE to be kidding me, who the hell uses linux anyway? Not an average user, NOR does businesses use Linux.

 

Programs are just a hell of a lot more compatible with Windows compared to Linux.

I think that's the only advantage Windows has over Linux,
but it's just a huge advantage. And don't bother telling me
about the possibilities of Wine =P

Give it 10 years, and I do believe Linux can edge ahead
on this issue.

 

windows is better, because of ease of use and compatibility. for all intents and purposes, windows is better for the larger demographic.
i have never had a blue screen in my life. they happen when you screw around with drivers and/or hardware, and that'll screw up any system.
the only reason I would ever switch to linux is if windows started to REALLY crap out

 

how the f**k do you install things on linux

 

I use Windows, both for work and at home, and I am very satisfied with its stability, at least since Windows 2000. And yes, I had my times with Linux, too. I even have different Linux distributions installed in some virtual machines.

There are many reasons I will stick with Windows: my favourite games don't run on Linux. The terminal server client solution is crappy. Some USB hardware isn't recognised correctly. All the software I got used to is definitely there, and it's free, too, but it works totally the other way round.

But the main reason against Linux is the community itself. Most of the software has a five-liner as its description, and whenever I had a question in forums, 99% of the answers are "read the manpage" or simply "man blablabla".
Everything seems to be self-explanatory, as long as you take a few hours and read all of the source code.

If the Linux community would be serious about getting Windows users over to them, there would be more effort put in software description, release changes, and friendlyness in the forums.

 

Why the heck should I need to "hack the kernel"? My computer is my tool, not a car I play around with once in a while.

If you want to drill a few holes in your wall, do you first want to spend lots of time to solder the cables and "hack" the motor to adjust its drilling speed? I don't. I want to take the drill, drill the holes and put the drill back.

And, I don't need to nor want to be a specialist in drilling machines -- I just want to use it.

 

Your argument is simply polemic.
My Windows XP installation does not crash. If the application hangs, it hangs, and I can kill it.
You can install any explorer or file manager you want.
And the problem with DRM is, that Linux might possibly not play any DRM'ed (e. g. ) music, since... well... there is no DRM support. On Windows, I can hear DRM'ed music as well as free music.
The partition format argument doesn't count as well -- shouldn't one format be totally enough? The normal user, who wants to use the computer as a tool, doesn't care anyway.

 

"I wait for the day Linux is recognized by all as a separate and independent OS and not considered a windows replacement and not advertised as such."

This will be a good day, for the Linux community as well as for the Windows community.

"Whats even worse is that the same people come to linux expecting the same on demand customer service they had for windows. You (most likely) received your OS for free, no one owes you anything, people on (most) forums are helping you out of the kindness of their hearts. "

But what if I need support? What, if I want to have detailed descriptions of my software without digging through the sources? Come to the community forums to get "man blablabla" answers?

If I buy a car to drive around, I want it to drive me around. If it doesn't, I get manufacturer support.
If I get a car from the dump to tinker around with it, it's cheaper (if not free), it costs a lot more time and I get no support.

 

As far as desktop computing goes, Windows is king. Its office suite coupled with its friendly user interface explains why it is the most popular operating system for desktop computing in the world.

As a server operating system, that's another debate.

 

Actually I have used many different versions of Linux in the past 5 years. Some were better than others, but I didn't like any nearly as much as windows.

 

use both windows and linux, but linux will never take over my computer with its current state. Linux is not nearly as stable (with my experiances) as windows and has a fraction of the everyday programs i use. Photoshop owns my life and gimp lacks many great features of photoshop. So until Linux gets the support of large corporations making software I wont switch. And yes fanboys, they should charge for their products.