Windows vs. Linux

beatme101 · Post by **beatme101** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:10 pm

I finally got to use that Debian Linux again. Clearing many things from Task Manager I was able to allocate 128 MB of RAM to it. It was considerably faster, but still had a quite long startup and shutdown. The speed in the system was fair. I still find it way too difficult to install things. I discovered to install anything, you have to do some very complicated things that I don't understand. One guide said you need the source code to the kernel and you need to do some magical chants and compile the program I want installed with a large amount of command line strings, another guide said I need to edit a system file and compile the program I want with a different large amount of command line strings. It seems to differ with what I want to install but either way there isn't something you can just "click" on and it will install for you, you have to have some serious command line knowledge.

Looks like I'm sticking with Windows 2000 for a good long time.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:09 pm

I've tried several distributions of Linux as a desktop OS over the last 5 years or so, and none are up to scratch yet. I can't be bothered to arse about fixing silly little problems and incompatibilities when I could just install Windows and have a totally working operating system requiring a few easy to find downloads that require nothing more than double clicking.

On the other hand, as a basic, cheap and cheerful (file / web) server, Linux is king. Whack the discs in, reboot, select packages, wait for installation, start the requisite services, and off you go

However, I have spend the day working in Visual Studio with C#, creating web applications in conjunction a MSQL server and active directory, and the way everything links together is fantastic. Of course, all the software inevitably totalled tens of thousands of pounds... But y'know, I think it was worth it for a corporate environment based heavily around IT.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:04 am

Lawofthesnake wrote: XP: I have never had a good experince with this system ever since that virus that reset it every thirty seconds. With XP you have to set up virus protection, firewalls, spyware protections, and do regular scans to protect the system which can often cause strain on the resources.

I have no firewall, no AV, no antispyware etc on my computer, and I haven't in the last 8 years I've been using the Internet. No virii, no spyware, no problems at all. Big virus breakouts can all generally be traced back to one common cause: stupidity. Seriously, amazinglyhotlesbiansxxx.jpg.exe? Just think about it.

Lawofthesnake · Post by **Lawofthesnake** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:10 am

If you don't have any of those things how can you be sure none of those things exist on your computer?

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:13 am

Lawofthesnake wrote: If you don't have any of those things how can you be sure none of those things exist on your computer?

Due to an entire lack of strange processes or behaviour, and the scans I'm forced to run whenever my uni decides to lock everyone out of the network without the above software?

CiDhed · Post by **CiDhed** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:30 am

I like mac. I use to hate it but it has grown on me. I can remember arguing that windows was better then other OS because of its ease of use and gaming capability that was Windows 2000. I am now forced to run XP on my machine due to software being limited to it and vista (even though win2k isnt much different... They jsut want to kill it.)

Vista looks like OS 10.4 but runs like shit unless you have a damn powerful machine. I jsut fail to understand why a leader in OS development can not get it right? They spent what? 5 years on vista?

I'll stick to suse, solaris and OS X for my "Proud to use" OS's. Microsoft has enough support.

Best MS product: Xbox family.

AdamR · Post by **AdamR** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:00 am

CiDhed wrote: Vista looks like OS 10.4 but runs like *beep* unless you have a damn powerful machine.

I personally still cannot see how Vista looks like Tiger. The similarities are far fetched.

Also, we can be very glad for Microsoft requiring such high requirements for each OS release as it's one of the only ways to force technology forward. Do you actually realize how far hardware has come since 2001? A *high end* machine back then had 256MB RAM and 80GB HDD.

I jsut fail to understand why a leader in OS development can not get it right? They spent what? 5 years on vista?

They got Vista very right, IMO. Grated, it took too long. I'll give you that, though.

- Adam

CiDhed · Post by **CiDhed** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:33 am

I fail to understand why Vista needs such high requirements when other OS's can display visual effects on par with vista with 500mhz processors. I understand that it moves technology forward but I thought thats what games were for? What is stopping vista from performing well on a P3 1.2ghz with 512 megs of ram? Other then poor programing.

Vista was also supposed to be redesigned from the ground up.

Gud · Post by **Gud** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:17 pm

AdamR wrote: Also, we can be very glad for Microsoft requiring such high requirements for each OS release as it's one of the only ways to force technology forward.

Yes. Or maybe we should use the extra cpu cycles for something useful instead of Vista bloat. Seriously, do you honestly believe that it's bloated software that is driving technology forward?

Lawofthesnake · Post by **Lawofthesnake** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:05 pm

I think the hardware specs would be fine if it didn't cost so much to buy a windows vista machine. come on it's making os x macs cheaper than vista pcs :/

AdamR · Post by **AdamR** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:09 pm

CiDhed wrote: What is stopping vista from performing well on a P3 1.2ghz with 512 megs of ram?

Absolutely nothing. My old desktop ran it perfectly fine (P4 1.5Ghz, 512RAM).

Gud wrote: Yes. Or maybe we should use the extra cpu cycles for something useful instead of Vista bloat. Seriously, do you honestly believe that it's bloated software that is driving technology forward?

Then I really don't understand how Vista runs more than twice as fast than XP or 2000 on the same hardware (provided it's relatively new). Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Lawofthesnake wrote: I think the hardware specs would be fine if it didn't cost so much to buy a windows vista machine. come on it's making os x macs cheaper than vista pcs :/

Do the math. If you have installed every version of OS X on your machine since 2001, you've spent more on an OS than Vista.

- Adam

Lawofthesnake · Post by **Lawofthesnake** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:11 pm

For new users to macs espically those looking for the highest end of Vista compared to a mac system its going to be much cheaper however linux will always be cheapest.

AdamR · Post by **AdamR** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:12 pm

Lawofthesnake wrote: For new users to macs espically those looking for the highest end of Vista compared to a mac system its going to be much cheaper however linux will always be cheapest.

Pick out any Mac and I'll beat it with a PC (including Vista) in terms of price/performance.

- Adam

Lawofthesnake · Post by **Lawofthesnake** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:21 pm

If one wanted this from their machine what would the lowest cost be that they could pay?
-The latest and best edition of the Os from each vendor running at minimum requirements
-Effective Virus, Spyware, and Firewall care

The mac mini starts at $600 for this. Where do other pc vendors compare?

Gud · Post by **Gud** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:11 pm

AdamR wrote: Then I really don't understand how Vista runs more than twice as fast than XP or 2000 on the same hardware (provided it's relatively new). Perhaps you could explain that to me.

That's simply not true.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
In fact, in almost all the benchmarks, XP outperforms Vista.

AdamR wrote: Pick out any Mac and I'll beat it with a PC (including Vista) in terms of price/performance.

The cheapest 15.4" macbook pro.

advertisements