Thread: Windows-Linux Comparison

I've found lack of drivers to be a sore point with linux.

I love Windows. I can actually get work done instead of having to read man pages or having to hack endless configuration files.

*turns towards Redmond and bows*

Originally Posted by happyclown

I've found lack of drivers to be a sore point with linux.

I love Windows. I can actually get work done instead of having to read man pages or having to hack endless configuration files.

*turns towards Redmond and bows*

The last time I had a driver issue with Linux was over 5 years ago. Just out of curiosity, what drivers have you found Linux to be lacking in?

I use both Linux and Windows regularly (one at work, one at home). I prefer Linux, but there are some programs that Linux just can't run which I want to use. Once virtual machine implementations reach a certain level of functionality, this will be a moot point.

Originally Posted by Elysia

This one is #1 important. I hate to research or read manuals to find out how to use stuff. I like everything nice, pretty and consistent.

Originally Posted by happyclown

I love Windows. I can actually get work done instead of having to read man pages or having to hack endless configuration files.

Are you guys too cool to use the help menu? I've never once announced, "I don't want to read!" proudly. Any GUI can be consistent but that's not really what matters.

I can't communicate this better than actually going into my experience as a user I guess, so I'm sorry if this beleaguers the point. Using things like IRC, not everything is completely intuitive in the client (for me), but rather than irrationally deciding I can't use IRC ever I read the help files. I more often than not turn to my help files when I need to decide how to use a feature, or if something can be done. I feel like you're trying to compare help documents.

PEBKAC.

One thing I do like about Linux, and I imagine this comes from the kernel, is the file permission system. In windows, the extension determines the permissions unless you go into properties for individual files. In Linux, one of the reasons viruses can't work is because executable permissions are rarely granted. I like that. I also like that the OS doesn't need to defrag the filesystem. I read a benchmark in PC mag which only confirmed what I thought I knew. Defragging for me has never led to noticeable performance gains and I just do it routinely as part of a maintenance checklist.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I am also interested in the answer to this because I am almost convinced that you aren't taking something into account. If you have a subscription to something that entitles you to releases, that's cool, but that isn't free. It may even be that your school (or perhaps your government if not the school) pays the price. In economics there is no free lunch.

I didn't say it was free. I said I get it for free.
I get it via MSDNAA.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Are you guys too cool to use the help menu? I've never once announced, "I don't want to read!" proudly. Any GUI can be consistent but that's not really what matters.

I can't communicate this better than actually going into my experience as a user I guess, so I'm sorry if this beleaguers the point. Using things like IRC, not everything is completely intuitive in the client (for me), but rather than irrationally deciding I can't use IRC ever I read the help files. I more often than not turn to my help files when I need to decide how to use a feature, or if something can be done. I feel like you're trying to compare help documents.

Rant at me if you want, but I don't like browsing through help files to find what I want. Some of us are lazy. Deal with it.
A computer is a tool--one I want to be able to use without hassle.
Just like I don't want to read through a manual to get my TV working properly, I don't want to read through manuals and help files to get my computer working properly.
I know, I know, a computer is much more complex than a TV, but it doesn't change the facts.

Definitely windows has a massive advantage over linux for drivers. If you want to use, eg, a webcam with linux, you'd best pick one off a supported list, otherwise you are just rolling dice.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Rant at me if you want, but I don't like browsing through help files to find what I want. Some of us are lazy. Deal with it.
A computer is a tool--one I want to be able to use without hassle.

I totally understand this attitude in my friends who are not programmers, who I never try to pitch linux at. They use windows and it works fine for them, why would they want to change?

Coming from a programmer tho, to me it just sounds totally head-in-the-sand ignorant. Like, most people who drive cars are not interested in tuning the car, most of them aren't even interested in changing the oil or air filter, and that's fine (I guess) but if represent yourself as someone who works on cars and is involved in their development, you need to take an interest in their use above and beyond just getting the thing into gear, turning the wheel appropriately and deploying the parking brake. That may even include taking an interest in more than one kind of vehicle.

Of course, this may overly idealistic if your "career path" consists of following the instructions you are given by your superiors so you can collect a paycheck. Something tells me Mr. Bill Gates did not have this attitude tho (even if he does employ lots of such people), or he'd just be an accountant somewhere today instead of what he is.

On the other hand, that means I'm implying windows is better for the majority of the general public, which I think is true. On the other other hand, I wasn't a programmer (or, as far as I can remember, even particularly interested in computers) when I got into linux and I thought it was great right away (I guess that is a minority of the general public).

Originally Posted by Epy

Edit: Not to go off-topic, but apple sucks. I'm so tired of the stupid commercials comparing macs to pcs when they're both pcs, they're just comparing mac os x to windows. If you really like mac os x thats your thing, but for the most part it's the same trendy retards who walk around with ipods who end up buying macs. They're just a fashion item.

Hmmm. A couple years ago my mom, who is in the "majority of the general public" category I just referred to, wanted to replace her laptop and decided (not sure where she got the idea) that she'd like a Mac better. So she bought a macbook and AFAICT she really does like it better and find it easier to use, and she apparently intends to stick with Apple in the future. I've barely ever used them but it makes sense to me, as does the philosophy of making both the hardware and the software (if you are using a proprietary model). They're freaking not cheap tho.

Originally Posted by MK27

I totally understand this attitude in my friends who are not programmers, who I never try to pitch linux at. They use windows and it works fine for them, why would they want to change?

Coming from a programmer tho, to me it just sounds totally head-in-the-sand ignorant. Like, most people who drive cars are not interested in tuning the car, most of them aren't even interested in changing the oil or air filter, and that's fine (I guess) but if represent yourself as someone who works on cars and is involved in their development, you need to take an interest in their use above and beyond just getting the thing into gear, turning the wheel appropriately and deploying the parking brake. That may even include taking an interest in more than one kind of vehicle.

Of course, this may overly idealistic if your "career path" consists of following the instructions you are given by your superiors so you can collect a paycheck. Something tells me Mr. Bill Gates did not have this attitude tho (even if he does employ lots of such people), or he'd just be an accountant somewhere today instead of what he is.

Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of things that are in Linux. The ability to have control over everything, for example, is cool and nice. I also have a burning desire for knowing how everything is put together.
However, going back to your analogy, while I might not currently know how to change an oil filter, if I were a mechanic, I could certainly find out how to do it. The only problem is that I would hate doing it. Usually. The more time I have to spend figuring out how to get something working, the more annoyed I become. It's my nature.
I also realize that this might not be a good programmer attitude, and fortunately for me, I know I can get away with it because I am not, nor do I intend to become, a professional programmer out in the industry. It's a hobby, and it will probably not become something more than that. At least not when working for others, and for the time being at the very least.

Originally Posted by MK27

I totally understand this attitude in my friends who are not programmers, who I never try to pitch linux at. They use windows and it works fine for them, why would they want to change?

Coming from a programmer tho, to me it just sounds totally head-in-the-sand ignorant. Like, most people who drive cars are not interested in tuning the car, most of them aren't even interested in changing the oil or air filter, and that's fine (I guess) but if represent yourself as someone who works on cars and is involved in their development, you need to take an interest in their use above and beyond just getting the thing into gear, turning the wheel appropriately and deploying the parking brake. That may even include taking an interest in more than one kind of vehicle.

I think you're under the false impression that Programmers and IT people are the same thing.
I could care less about the deep dark crevices of Linux or Windows; or how to edit endless config files or registry settings to get other people's software to work, or optimize the system to squeeze out a few more clock ticks or MB... If I liked that stuff, I'd work in the IT department. I'm a Developer; so I like writing software -- end of story.
Sure, I need to know a little about the system to compile code and stuff like that, but the more time I spend learning the OS, the less time I have to do what I want to do which is write software.

To use your car analogy, there are Users who just drive cars and don't care about how it works; Mechanics who fix cars and need to know how they work; and various Car Developers who should know a lot about the part of the car they're designing, but don't need to know everything about a car (some designers work only on the body, some on the interior, some on the electrical system...)

There are also different types of programmers. There are application developers who just write user programs like games & spreadsheets; there are client-server developers who write back-end software for IT people, and there are system developers who write device drivers and other low level things that interact closely with the OS and therefore they need to know a lot more about how the OS works.

Originally Posted by bithub

The last time I had a driver issue with Linux was over 5 years ago. Just out of curiosity, what drivers have you found Linux to be lacking in?.

I get them all the time. Most recently, a TV dongle.

Originally Posted by bithub

The last time I had a driver issue with Linux was over 5 years ago. Just out of curiosity, what drivers have you found Linux to be lacking in?

For brand new hardware, drivers always come out for Windows first, then Linux later if you're lucky. I couldn't find Linux drivers that worked for the ICH9R Raid on my motherboard.

Originally Posted by zacs7

What a pointless thread, seriously. Ideally you should only be comparing the kernels.

Unless you run some programs on top of the kernels, you have nothing but a big paper-weight. In which case Windows and Linux would be exactly the same, they'd both boot up.

Originally Posted by happyclown

I've found lack of drivers to be a sore point with linux.

I love Windows. I can actually get work done instead of having to read man pages or having to hack endless configuration files.

*turns towards Redmond and bows*

You know I think that is quite funny as I have that exact problem with Windows. I can take a laptop that *came* with Windows on it, a new (not upgrade) legal paid-for copy of Windows and install it in the laptop. In *every* case basic things like networking, USB, video and audio do not function and I need to chase down drivers on the web. With any recent linux like Ubuntu all the drivers are there and everything *just works*, even to finding and installing printer drivers for network printers....


I do not apologize though for enjoying the education I got for free....smart is better than dumb.

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

I do not apologize though for enjoying the education I got for free....smart is better than dumb.

But please do apologize for being clueless.
You cannot be very smart if, as you say, Linux taught you so much about computers, but you have constant problems with drivers under Windows and don't deal with it very well. I can happily say I'm smarter than you. I can handle driver issues on both operating systems. And I have been a Microsoft user since DOS 4 or 5. You know, I dumb according to you, but still smarter than you. Weird.

Or maybe very smart Windows users (you know, professional programmers, nobel prizes, scientists, software architects) also have problems with Linux drivers and don't know very well how to deal with it? In that case you could also be smart, being that smart is not a function of what operating system you use, neither how you handle it, or wether you choose to pay for your education or get it for free. Or you could still be clueless because you somehow think Linux provides you some kind of higher smartness that Windows users can't achieve.

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

I do not apologize though for enjoying the education I got for free....smart is better than dumb.

Erm... using Windows does NOT cost money. Sure, buying it might... but there are Linux distros that cost money. And there are free, legal ways of getting Windows (past versions perhaps).

Originally Posted by zacs7

Erm... using Windows does NOT cost money. Sure, buying it might... but there are Linux distros that cost money. And there are free, legal ways of getting Windows (past versions perhaps).

Using Windows doesn't cost money; Buying it does. So does having to pay for most of the apps you use. Even those make come with a few minor-point upgrade or two but after that the Vendor will be there with his/her hand out again. And don't get me started on registration codes/numbers/copy protection...that stuff I don't miss at all.

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

Using Windows doesn't cost money; Buying it does. So does having to pay for most of the apps you use. Even those make come with a few minor-point upgrade or two but after that the Vendor will be there with his/her hand out again. And don't get me started on registration codes/numbers/copy protection...that stuff I don't miss at all.

Are you trolling or what? There are free Windows ports for most software. And going off your previous quote:

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

For those who complain that they had some device X and Linux didn't support it, I am reminded of the Henny Youngman joke about "doctor doctor it hurts when I do this!!" Doctor: Then don't do that. IOW if I have a choice between two printers, Windows (or more to the point manufacturer) only supports one and the other is supported by both, I go where I have support.

Then you shouldn't be buying the software that costs, instead going with the free alternative. Going with the one that is free. "Oh but it does less", Yes -- that's the same story with a given printer that works on Windows and not Linux.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Rant at me if you want, but I don't like browsing through help files to find what I want.

Well there's your problem. Why are you browsing the help files, instead of searching through them? :\

Originally Posted by jeffcobb

I just wanted to point out a misconception you apparently had. Another that you had (and what you quoted from my message) is that I am arguing that Windows is $$ and Linux is $0.00. Linux exacts a charge like Windows does. The difference is that where Windows hits your pocket book and enforces it through registration/license codes, Linux takes payment through education if you are a user and the GPL if you are a programmer

As I said earlier. You can get Windows legally for free. And there are Linux distros that cost money. So there goes that "argument".

And the whole "closed-source is evil" idea is wrong. Say your company spends millions on developing a game, with in-house algorithms and methods of doing things. As if you can blame them for not releasing the source, are you serious?

Originally Posted by mario

... to Arch Linux and am today a confident Linux user.

Yay, we're not alone