View Full Version : Windows Vs Linux

02-01-2002, 12:12 PM
I was just wondering ,knowing very little, why everone has such a downer on microsoft. I heard about linux at college and was wondering why everyone seems to hate windows and office so much. I have windows XP and so far have almost no complaints it does what it says on the box. I don't want to get the back up of anyone but i was just interested to find out why all my lecturers hate them. When asked they don't say much possibly because my college is a microsoft approved training centre Cheers Davie

02-01-2002, 12:58 PM
Anything sucessful will always have an armada of detractors - goes with the teritory.

02-01-2002, 01:09 PM
There are many advantages and disadvantages of M$ Windows. It takes up a lot of hdd space for one and it can be unstable (I really haven't had problems, but I've heard stories). But, Windows is widely used and you as a user and/or programmer are forced into it. Linux, on the other hand has good mem management and takes up a fraction of hdd space. You have to set your priorities, though.


02-01-2002, 01:16 PM
Ive nothing against M$ as a company they are so sccessful because of producing accessable easy to use and effective (admit it) software and because of excellent business management. However their prices are a little steep. But Microsoft made the major steps of bringing computers into the home.

Linux is free, open source and very very powerful, but the lacks simplicity of use that windows does.

02-01-2002, 01:20 PM
>> Linux is free, open source and very very powerful, but the lacks simplicity of use that windows does. <<

This shouldn't be a big problem, especially in a community of programmers. I mean, it is a disadvantage, but nothing to stop someone from using it as a main. You'll just have to learn a little more. No harm in that...


02-01-2002, 01:23 PM
ahhh... the ever present linux vs. windows question... (see avatar)... i'm a large fan of unix/linux.. but i have to agree with iain in saying that Linux or any brand of unix lacks the simplicity of any M$ product.. the learning curve for a Unix system is much greater than that of M$ systems... if M$ and the eventual creation of Windows as we know it today had not been created, the number of users with home computers, and even some business applications would not be present today.

But getting back to your main question... everyone loves to hate a winner... it's the ever present quest to find the worst in the best.

02-01-2002, 02:37 PM
I think it all boils down to this. M$ are a huge company. Like any other company, you have to stand on a few toes on your way to the top. ANd M$ have (allegedly) done a lot of toe treading. Its not su much that people hate M$, its more their Business Practaces that we hate.

Lucky there not a UK based company..... the Gov would have split them up years ago. Just look at our post office, our trains, our film inductry, our phone system...... our........ etc etc !

02-01-2002, 03:27 PM
The reason why I hate MS:


the .doc file format is bull****!
power point presentations cannot be exportet to a standalone format
access don't allow me to go deeper! I nearly can only use the Assistents!

Office needs too much CPU power and RAM. HDD space is acceptable.


can't see the blue screen anymore! OK, win2k and win xp aren't that bad anymore, but win98 or win nt 4.0 are not really stabil.

The winapi forces you to do so many workarounds...

Visual Studio:

OK, that are cool Tools! OK, MFC is to old and the VC++ is not really near to the C/C++ Standard, but all in all it's good!


There are so many security holes!!
it is EXPENSIVE!!!

02-01-2002, 06:41 PM
Windows is used because it's easy and dependable(e.g., when I learn what it freezes on, I can avoid it). Executables made for windows can be distributed with relitively little fear of compatability problems. Linux/Unix/...bsd don't have compatable executables.

Linux is used because it's truly dependable(doesn't freeze unless it's a hardware problem), and free. If there's something you want done, linux can probably do it. The compatibility problem doesn't matter when the source code itself is distributed(unless you use redhat's version of gcc).

For the average person, linux would work just well as windows(imho). Some versions of linux, like redhat, are easy to set up. It comes with a browser, word processor, etc... like windows.

The primary problem is installing other programs. When the average windows user uses windows, installing is as simple as popping the cd in the cdrom, and double clicking the install/setup.exe(if it doesn't autorun). I have never used a linux cd(i download everything i need), so I don't know if linux has that same feature.
When I want a windows program(like winamp), i can download the executable, double-click it, and follow the prompts. Installing something for linux is much harder. There are competing types of packages, like debian, redhat, and slackware. I can't remember a good experience using redhat's packages. There are also 'tarballs' for linux. These are cross-distribution, and usually cross-platform. Most of the time all I need to do is ./configure, make, and make install. X Windows(the graphic part of linux) doesn't do this for me, so first-time users might get scared.
Basically, what is needed for linux to suceed in the every-day world is:
compatability with almost all the devices Microsoft is compatable with(winmodems are a big problem, due to legal problems)
a friendlier GUI(something which would keep people from needing to go to the console)
a way to install tarballs by double-clicking them(I'm not sure,but i think slackware is close)
a public relations campaign(lots of ads, tux at the super-bowl, etc...)
a compelling reason to switch
compatability with existing microsoft excel/powerpoint/word files
and most importantly:
a grassroots movement to use open-source software. (People aren't used to getting their products for free, or using software made in someone's spare time).

02-01-2002, 06:55 PM
In 1990(hmmm...), when Win 2.0 first cam out. All the buyers are practically forced to buy Windows for a MSDOS because if you don't buy the Windows, you can't buy a DOS. So this is why M$ is so successful... They make buyers buy Windows.

Now we are practically "forced" to use Windows.. Photoshop only support Windows and MAC, Winzip only supports Windows, all of my games only supports Windows, my Encyclopedia only support Windows (yeah, M$ product, come with PC), Even the manufacturer only supports Windows!!

Windows is so successful only because 98% of all the program makers supports Windows!

02-01-2002, 07:08 PM
Companies have to make money. Microsoft feels the need to make a lot, at the expense of quality. I doubt linux will ever seriously take over the desktop market (although IBM and AOL seem to want to do just that with Red Hat).

02-01-2002, 07:22 PM
the reason i hate micro**** is because it babies you and does not allow you to fully customize your pc... that bull **** when you click on the program files for the first time and windows warns you " DONT GO THERE YOUR STUPID AND NOT A COMPUTER SCIENTIST AND YOU COULD MESS UP!"

like really who cares... and i have never used a more stable os then openbsd... it is also practically unhackable if a skilled administrator is behind it...

02-01-2002, 07:23 PM
Microsoft software is too expensive, and I don't like the way that Windows comes out with a new OS or a second edition of an OS when you've just paid some 200 buck or something for one of their latest OS.

02-01-2002, 07:26 PM
I don't really think it is a versus for me. I like both. I learn windows stuff because it is popular and will be a good source of income for me. I learn linux because it makes me have to think and is good for many applications.

The companies are versus eachother. I am not a warrior for either.

In the immortal words of Geddy Lee

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!!"

02-01-2002, 07:40 PM
>>>but i have to agree with iain in saying that Linux or any brand of unix lacks the simplicity of any M$ product..

I don't necessarily agree. There is a lerning curve to windows when you first start, and the GUI in linux is getting to be much stronger and user friendly. (much to the dismay of true linux users) I mean, what do you really need to do... the RPM does your installations for you, many games come as binaries now that self extract and install.

When I learned windows, I had to pick up dos commands that were foreign to me if I wanted to do some things.

Then again... people buy books like Windows for Dummies. I don't know... I didn't think that linux was hard after I figured out 'startx'. And several unix courses later... well... I feel like I know what I am doing anyway. :)

Justin W
02-02-2002, 09:24 AM
I see no reason not to try both and decide where you fit in best (especially now that modern Linux distros can run virtually all Windows apps - my fav is Suse 7.3). www.demolinux.org is a great download. It is a preinstalled linux (with many feature cuts mind you) that you just boot off the CD and tada, play with it. It doesn't touch your hard drive, so no worries. Just power down, eject the CD and it is uninstalled (in no particular order ;) ). It really just gives you a feel for Linux and Star Office, and will run slow because it is off the CD and a "hot filesystem" that doesn't use the hard drive even for swap space... and it doesn't come with Wine so you can't run Win apps [edit: I think], but it does let you play with all the other Linux habitats. :)

Big download, but stable. Never has cut me off midway yet.

02-02-2002, 11:37 AM
>Windows is so successful only because 98% of all the program >makers supports Windows!

From a marketing point of view, you could turn the point of view as stated above to: since Windows is so popular many makers will support it!

Most people who use a computer, use it for doing things like administration, word processing, databases, spreadsheets, planning and that kind of stuff. And as long as the computer is doing that, they're satisfied. And if the computer is doing something wrong (it crashes), then they will simply call the help-desk.

Most people who don't like Windows or Microsoft in general are people who are someway involved in computer technology, because of their profession, hobby or study. But such people usually have some more knowledge about the OS's in the world. The average computer user doesn't know about OS's like Linux, Unix, FeeBSD and all those other non-Microsoft OS's.

Since the number of people involved in computer technology is much less than the number of people who isn't, marketeers go for Windows.

By the way, when just doing word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets etc., Windows is okay in my experience. Only when doing some more technical things, I prefer some other OS. Mainly Linux or some other RTOS.

So I do not necessarily hate Windows, but I agree with Jock, it's the marketing practice of Microsoft that I hate. But I guess marketeers of other company's are the same as Microsoft's marketeers, only not as succesful as Microsoft's marketeers.

I don't like marketeers, they think that they know what I like. They think that their inventions are good for me. They say things like "the consumer doesn't want that" or "the consumer needs this" etc. I really hate that!

02-03-2002, 12:01 AM
M$ is like USA vs Rest of the world :) in the sense of OS market (number of users).

In present you have no other better way.
For programmers Linux is the best. I like to code in linux .. there are lots of other reasons already explained over there.

E-commerce (financial transection) & online application, where security of data is the first priority in an open environment.

02-03-2002, 12:45 AM
in 1980 something a very nice looking gal took MSDOS 5.? off my machine. i fought and screamed and cryed... dont put that windows stuff on my box just leave me alone.
well here i am 20 years latter and i was right. it sucked then and it sucks now. in fact i within the last 20 minuts had M$ XP tell me it was impossible to install on this box. (AMD Athlon 750, ASUS K7M MB, 256MB ram, 20GB HDD, 32 MB video etc) so i had to go back to my Red Hat partiton to write this message.
if you recall - im dating my self here - command line loads of all apps in dos. autoexec.bat & config.sys as long as your arm youll know what i mean.
Linux is pretty clean now. and the apps are getting better by the day. look at KDevelope and compare it to Borland Builder.
as far as complexity goes ill say two words NO REGISTRYS(sp) in linux you can get to and mod any system setting from the command line try that in windoze.

Oh SH__ im ranting again -- SORRY.


02-03-2002, 02:58 AM
Oh sure, Cobol and Unux are the way better than Windows programs, that's the reason why every large corporation on earth uses Cobol and Unix, because it is superior, it has nothing to do with costs of upgrading technology.

02-03-2002, 03:33 AM
>Oh sure, Cobol and Unux are the way better than Windows >programs, that's the reason why every large corporation on >earth uses Cobol and Unix, because it is superior, it has nothing >to do with costs of upgrading technology.

I think you should make a difference between companies. An accountant company requires other technology than a software developing company does.

I've heard that in financial applications, Cobol is used a lot. Though here in the Netherlands many financial companies are turning to C++ and Java and some other higher level languages.

But I've looked around at several companies involved in embedded systems for some years now, and I've never seen Cobol. It's all C, assembly, C++ and also Java is getting more important.

I agree with using Unix-like OS's. For doing software development, it's much better than Windows.

02-03-2002, 09:41 AM
people seem to forget that unix powers most of the webpages and servers arround...

02-03-2002, 11:54 AM
I do think the Anti MS debate is less about technology and more about business.

Microsoft have made their fortune by making a product, telling everyone how great it is, and then, when a new product comes out telling us all how poor the old one was and how the new one really will do the stuff they promised the first version would do - and it still didn't!!

The other aspect of M$ is that they bundle software to kill the compertition, and buy technology that they can't do themselves - think Netscape, Hotmail, ReadPlease2000, Visio and a hundred other little apps that make up XP.

But the one thing I so hate M$ for is their Licences - especially CAL's - how dare they charge me for accessing a Windows server using Linux or even a MAC!

It seems to me that M$ and Bill Gates is the IT industry's equivilent of Henry Ford - and he said somthing along the lines of " Ford is successful because we make stuff that is good enough!"

02-03-2002, 12:09 PM
I wonder how many suicides for which Windows is responsible...

02-04-2002, 06:57 AM
I don't hate Microsoft, but I do prefer Linux. One critique I can make of Windows is their decision to deviate from some international standards. This is not always a bad thing, as their implementation of Server Gated Cryptography (SGC) was pretty slick. However, their implementation of TCP makes me wonder if they need a large banner in Redmond that reads: "Remember - FIN ACK FIN ACK".

One thing I really appreciate in Linux is the enormous potential to learn so many details about everything it touches. Windows encapsulates the gory details, delivering ease of use. Linux allows you complete control over your system, which means you had better know your stuff or have a lot of patience.

I'm not holding my breath for a Linux dominated desktop market, and I'm not too worried about it. I don't believe Windows or Linux can be all things to all people.