5 Things Linux does better than Windows

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been running vista for a year now and the only bsods I have gotten were caused by me pushing an overclock to far so they aren't Vista's fault.

Ubuntu may have a release every 6 months but I fail to see the advantage in releasing a new os in short arbitrary intervals. Inf act you could make a case for some of the Ubuntu releases amounting to little more than service packs.

I installed Ubuntu 7.10 o my previous laptop back when it was first released. After dodging one bullet by deliberately buying an Atheros wifi card that worked out of the box I still had to spend an hour or two getting the aTI video card drivers working. Initially I used Ubuntu a lot but after a while I found myself using it less and less since it didn't offer me anything I couldn't do in windows.

When I recently decided to replace xp on my MSI Wind I considered using ubuntu netbook remix but ended up using Windows 7. I mounted the 7 iso with daemon tool in xp, started the installation process and then rebooted to finish installing. Once it was installed all I had to do was connect to Windows update which downloaded the wifi drivers, everything else worked right out of the box including Aero. The whole installation process took an hour at most and this is for a beta os.

I don't think Windows is perfect, it's far from it. However I think people are far to quick to bash Windows , particularly Vista, while at the same time they are willing to ignore or dismiss any issues Linux has.

Recently I tried PC-BSD based of Saxons recommendation and i have to say I was impressed. I agree with Zmatt, they just seem to get it. While I don't think it is perfect either I do think they are heading in the right direction.

Well, there's several things here that caught my eye. For one, you're speaking in reference to 7.10... an older distro that while was half decent, wasn't the booming landmark that 8.04 was. To this I could type 7 pages about why Windows Millennium was bad, but it's an old OS not used anymore so... why bother?

Secondly, you're bringing up ATI. Not that ATI is bad by any means, but ATI was exceptionally lagged when it came to pumping out proper drivers in comparison to Nvidia. That, coupled with the fact we're talking about 2007 here, makes perfect sense that you had issues. 2007 may seem like a short time ago, but in Linux terminology - it's a longass time, considering that exceptional upgrades are made on a 6 month basis, whereas Windows users are used to the 3-5 year regime. However, ATI has since caught up to speed a good bit, despite the fact I still prefer Nvidia and find them to be more compatible with Linux.

Nobody here is denying that Linux has issues, nor am I trying to paint the picture that Windows is awful. I run Vista and XP on more machines than I run Ubuntu, and I'm surrounded by over a thousand Windows machines at work that I have to keep up on. But at the end of the day, I'm not the head-honcho that picks and chooses what computers and software we get. I do the best I have with what I have to work with. At home though, now that's a different story.

I'm a hard working guy just like countless other people in the world. So when it comes to allocating time and money into something, I have some choices to make... and when I set my criteria down on the table, examples being:

Price
Stability
Support
Customization
Ease of use
Advanced end features
Compatibility

To me, it just screams Linux. To you, it may say Mac, or Windows, or BSD, or whatever else out there exists.

I'm not denying Linux has issues, nor am I saying Windows absolutely sucks. But as I've said, Linux of years ago is not the Linux it is today... the same way Windows of years ago isn't the same as today. Things change over time. They evolve. Sometimes you take a step back, other times you take a giant leap forward. That's what has happened to both Microsoft and the Linux community. It's the reality of anything even remotely related to technology in general. But at the end of the day, I'm left with 3 main choices - Linux, Mac, Windows, and I choose quite wisely. ;)
 
If you think that good security is to have to run antivirus, firewall, anti-spyware and other ****, yes windows is very secure. I never had any problems with virus, spyware, rootkits, etc in linux.
The best security is to install Common Sense 2009. But you don't install it on the computer.

If you have that, you don't need any programs like antivirus. And I use a router as my firewall.

probably around 99.9% of Windows viruses/spyware/rootkits are installed directly or indirectly by the user.
Almost all of them come from:
1) the use of IE6
2) P2P file sharing (I'm looking at you, limewire)
3) installed alongside useless/gimmicky downloaded programs (often promising to help you with issues/speed), screensavers, or mini-games.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of stupid people, who will download and open files like "2009 lesbians game keygen.jpg.exe". And I think they make Windows security look worse than it actually is.
Not to mention the fact that, since windows does have the largest market share, it is the biggest target for virus/malware writers.

As far as reliability and stability goes, I think 99.999% of windows crashes/issues are due to:
1) user error
2) bad drivers, and poorly written programs
3) malware (see 1)

So basically, if you
1) actually learn how the OS works
2) use good programs, and good drivers
you'll have a fast, stable OS that does what you want.


Also, I think it needs to be said that Windows ME used Microsoft's last DOS-based kernel, and it was a very rushed job at that.
I mean, DOS was never designed to work the way it was being used with windows up to Windows ME

Windows 2000 used the NT kernel, and it is a massive leap over the old DOS-based kernels in terms of stability, and robustness.
Windows XP was built on Windows 2000's kernel, and is extremely similar in the way it operates internally. Of course, it does include improvements.

But I think moving away from the DOS-based kernel is probably one of the best things Microsoft has done
 
The best security is to install Common Sense 2009. But you don't install it on the computer.

If you have that, you don't need any programs like antivirus. And I use a router as my firewall.

probably around 99.9% of Windows viruses/spyware/rootkits are installed directly or indirectly by the user.
Almost all of them come from:
1) the use of IE6
2) P2P file sharing (I'm looking at you, limewire)
3) installed alongside useless/gimmicky downloaded programs (often promising to help you with issues/speed), screensavers, or mini-games.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of stupid people, who will download and open files like "2009 lesbians game keygen.jpg.exe". And I think they make Windows security look worse than it actually is.
Not to mention the fact that, since windows does have the largest market share, it is the biggest target for virus/malware writers.

As far as reliability and stability goes, I think 99.999% of windows crashes/issues are due to:
1) user error
2) bad drivers, and poorly written programs
3) malware (see 1)

So basically, if you
1) actually learn how the OS works
2) use good programs, and good drivers
you'll have a fast, stable OS that does what you want.


Also, I think it needs to be said that Windows ME used Microsoft's last DOS-based kernel, and it was a very rushed job at that.
I mean, DOS was never designed to work the way it was being used with windows up to Windows ME

Windows 2000 used the NT kernel, and it is a massive leap over the old DOS-based kernels in terms of stability, and robustness.
Windows XP was built on Windows 2000's kernel, and is extremely similar in the way it operates internally. Of course, it does include improvements.

But I think moving away from the DOS-based kernel is probably one of the best things Microsoft has done

Well said Apok. Windows is a very stable and well rounded OS. it gets a bad rep because its ubiquitous. The ubiquity means that idiots use it too. And idiots do stupid things. Linux tends to have a more tech savvy audience, although I know plenty of stupid Linux users.

My Laptop runs Ubtunu 8.10 and my desktop runs Vista x64. The desktop boots much faster, and that is including startup programs and windows bloat.

As far as linux customization, I have heard many make that claim, but none actually take the time to code in their own functionality or eye candy. To me its a false point. Compiz also haze a million issues with it. I have only seen it work without a hitch in demo videos. In the real world its a major drain.

Secondly, you're bringing up ATI. Not that ATI is bad by any means, but ATI was exceptionally lagged when it came to pumping out proper drivers in comparison to Nvidia. That, coupled with the fact we're talking about 2007 here, makes perfect sense that you had issues. 2007 may seem like a short time ago, but in Linux terminology - it's a longass time, considering that exceptional upgrades are made on a 6 month basis, whereas Windows users are used to the 3-5 year regime. However, ATI has since caught up to speed a good bit, despite the fact I still prefer Nvidia and find them to be more compatible with Linux.

I put this in the same boat as the customization argument. In my experience i have actually had better luck with ATI cards. maybe I'm just lucky, I don't know. But I consider the argument that Nvidia has better support as a big load. IMO Intel has really good support. They have up to date drivers for all of their IGPs. The IGPs may suck, but they have the fewest issues in Linux.
 
My Laptop runs Ubtunu 8.10 and my desktop runs Vista x64. The desktop boots much faster, and that is including startup programs and windows bloat.

Whoa whoa, you're comparing apples and oranges there, dude. Comparing laptop speed versus desktop speed is the most inaccurate thing you can do man.

Let's try this on for size. I have a desktop, Pentium 4 1gb of RAM with XP Pro. Then I have a laptop. Intel Core 2 Duo with 2gb of RAM, also XP Pro. You would think that the laptop would kick the pants off the desktop. The laptop boots considerably slower, and it's brand new while the desktop is a couple years old. Two different beasts there.

As far as linux customization, I have heard many make that claim, but none actually take the time to code in their own functionality or eye candy. To me its a false point. Compiz also haze a million issues with it. I have only seen it work without a hitch in demo videos. In the real world its a major drain.

Granted, Compiz has had issues... but I'm saying that because it's what I've heard - not what I've experienced. I guess I'll have to take a video of my compiz setup that seems to be issue-less then so you can say you say you saw the average joe's compiz setup that worked. ;)











The best security is to install Common Sense 2009. But you don't install it on the computer.

Wait, what? You mean AntiVirus 2009 doesn't give me every bit of protection I need like it says on the dozens of popups it gives me?? :p :p
 
Whoa whoa, you're comparing apples and oranges there, dude. Comparing laptop speed versus desktop speed is the most inaccurate thing you can do man.

Let's try this on for size. I have a desktop, Pentium 4 1gb of RAM with XP Pro. Then I have a laptop. Intel Core 2 Duo with 2gb of RAM, also XP Pro. You would think that the laptop would kick the pants off the desktop. The laptop boots considerably slower, and it's brand new while the desktop is a couple years old. Two different beasts there.

My point is to show that Linux is nto as fast as you say it is. In fact it boot smuch slower than OSX did on the thing. Windows is notorious for slow bootups so that pretty much even things out. My point is this; Linux is not necessarily faster than any other OS.


Granted, Compiz has had issues... but I'm saying that because it's what I've heard - not what I've experienced. I guess I'll have to take a video of my compiz setup that seems to be issue-less then so you can say you say you saw the average joe's compiz setup that worked. ;)

In my experience Compiz is slow and crash prone. And that is running on modern desktops with real video cards.












Wait, what? You mean AntiVirus 2009 doesn't give me every bit of protection I need like it says on the dozens of popups it gives me?? :p :p[/QUOTE]
 
My point is to show that Linux is nto as fast as you say it is. In fact it boot smuch slower than OSX did on the thing. Windows is notorious for slow bootups so that pretty much even things out. My point is this; Linux is not necessarily faster than any other OS.

And my point is, as noted above, I dual boot Ubuntu 9.04 64 bit and Vista Ultimate. Even with Vista having 0 startup programs, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly faster.

8.10 and Vista were on more comparable grounds. But when you had 4 gig of RAM for Vista to eat up when it boots, of course it'll move half decently. Boot up 8.10 and Vista on 1gb of RAM, and you'll see even more difference.

But the bottom line is, speaking from experience with dual booting both OS's on the exact same system, that 8.10 and Vista with 4gb of RAM boot at almost the same time, but 9.04 is considerably faster than them both.

I'm not even running the EXT4 file system, which is supposed to optimize 9.04's boot speed, and still I'm surprised every time it fires up that the boot screen comes as fast as it does.
 
And my point is, as noted above, I dual boot Ubuntu 9.04 64 bit and Vista Ultimate. Even with Vista having 0 startup programs, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly faster.

8.10 and Vista were on more comparable grounds. But when you had 4 gig of RAM for Vista to eat up when it boots, of course it'll move half decently. Boot up 8.10 and Vista on 1gb of RAM, and you'll see even more difference.

But the bottom line is, speaking from experience with dual booting both OS's on the exact same system, that 8.10 and Vista with 4gb of RAM boot at almost the same time, but 9.04 is considerably faster than them both.

I'm not even running the EXT4 file system, which is supposed to optimize 9.04's boot speed, and still I'm surprised every time it fires up that the boot screen comes as fast as it does.

I have heard that 9.04 is fast at booting, I haven't tried it, so I can't comment on it. What about general system performance? My guess is the speedup is related to cutting processes. Canonical doesn't actually write much of the code in Ubuntu, so they don't have much say in its performance.
 
I have heard that 9.04 is fast at booting, I haven't tried it, so I can't comment on it. What about general system performance? My guess is the speedup is related to cutting processes. Canonical doesn't actually write much of the code in Ubuntu, so they don't have much say in its performance.

Honestly, I really don't know where the speedup occured at. I've ran 8.04/8.10 faithfully during their prime and now with 9.04 I certainly don't feel any setbacks. Things just kind of... run.

I also use my computer as a backup server, coupled with a simple samba file sharing network with some 3rd party Windows software on the XP clients in the house. And with everything running I haven't had a single hint of any underlying issues with it.

So far all I have are positive things to say. The only thing that ****ed me off with the new version of Ubuntu was Amarok media player, which is completely unrelated to Ubuntu in the first place. Amarok2 now loads when you install "Amarok", which Amarok2 locks down any and all audio while it's in use. Why is this good? You don't hear a random instant message BEEP! during Mike McCready's guitar solo. Why is this bad? If I pause Amarok2 and hit up YouTube to watch something quick, YouTube's audio is locked as well. It's one of those good in theory but poor in practicality things, since I can't find a way to disable it. The fix? I'm switching to Exaile media player. :)

But overall, I'm pretty impressed.
 
Pearl Jam sounds much better than IM beeps ever could, but I have to agree with you on the audio thing. I pause my music all the time to watch a youtube video.

TBH nothi ng in Ubuntu has anything to do with Ubuntu. Like I said earlier, Canonical writes maybe 5% of the code in Ubuntu. all they do is put packages of other programs together and call ti their own. Granted that's what most distros do, but I think its a bit misleading. Ubuntu is Debian with Gnome and a default theme that is heavy in earth tones.
 
Alright for those who talk about Windows Updates, lets not forget that Ubuntu gets a ton of them. I remember when i used to not boot back into Ubuntu for a couple of weeks and have well over 100 updates that would have to be done.

Even after a brand new install of Ubuntu i have seen well over 100 updates that had to be applied to have the latest patches. So Linux is not without updates either.

As for security, Apok said it best. I run a AV. Only cause i do go to some shady sites and download some questionable files at times. But the truth is any OS has it ups and down.

I mean come on. Flexability? If you dont like something change it. You can do that in Windows as well.

Stardock works in XP/Vista right now and wont be hard to adapt it to Win7. Look all sorts of customization there. Just like Linux has.

This matter is very subjective cause i can easily go point by point and give reasons why Windows is better. I used Linux before, i liked it. But i am a Windows person. I will always be a Windows person. As much as i would like to switch i wont. There is just nothing in Linux that draws me away from Windows that i cant do. There are some things that are easier in Windows. Yeah i know everyone will say "Like What?" and then go on to try and argue that point.

1. Games
2. DVD Copy
3. video file conversion to DVD

I find these 3 things right off the bat much easier to do in Windows without much fuss. Yes i know of the whole "Games are coded for Windows so of course it will be easier" deal. But to me the games i want to play are here. I dont want to have to get Wine and hack it up to try and get it working.

So yeah there are benefits to each OS. There are down sides to both. Common Sense is all you need to be safe. Using the OS that is easy for you and does what you want is all that should matter. Stop trying to change everyone and make them choose one or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom