Windows vs. Linux

[Simon Veteran]

Hey everyone! I was bored yesterday, so I wrote a 4 page article on Windows vs. Linux. I just want to share it with the Windows community before I publish it on my website. I want to note that this is very rough, and written in 2 days. Anything can be added, taken out, or changed, so all replies are welcome.

Also, I am not a journalist, I am in grade 8, its summer, and I was bored. This is my first ever article.

SEE THIS ON LINUXQUESTIONS.ORG BY CLICKING HERE!!!

Windows vs. Linux: My Opinion

VERY ROUGH COPY!!! go to page 2 in this thread for the good copy!

I have been a Windows user y whole life, and I really enjoyed it until last year, when a friend showed me Linux. Since then, I have constantly switched between the two. I thought they were both equal, so I made a list of pros and cons, and decided I would write an article comparing them. Note that I am not a journalist, and this is my first ever article written. If it goes well, I?ll make a section for articles on my website.

But enough of that, you want to hear what I have, don?t you? Ok, here it is.

Style and Comfort

Linux doesn?t come with great styles standard. When you look at Linux in screenshots, you don?t see anything amazing, you see command line and crappy window borders. Usually. But you can download different themes. Meanwhile, on the flipside of the hard drive, Windows comes with some great styles standard. In XP, it contains the classic windows style, basic, but quite comfortable, really, and the new Luna style, which has 3 different colors. You can also download the new Royale (Media Center) style off of Microsoft.com. And to take Linux?s point away, a hack on Windows XP?s uxtheme.dll can let you have any theme you want, and if it doesn?t, you can download Window Blinds, which has every other one.

Completeness

No installation is more complete than a Linux installation. Many, if not most, Linux ?distros? come with office software, 2 different ?Window Managers?, games, and some distro specific things. Windows comes with a small collection of games dating back to Windows 3.1, and a lot of Windows specific things. Windows also begs you to buy its office software, and numerous other Microsoft products.

However, Windows has some proper things individual to the operating system. It has the legendary start menu, a perfect control panel, and the compatibility to install almost anything else, because Windows is the most sued os.

Ease of use

This one would have gone straight to Windows about 5 years ago. But since then, Linux has grown into an easy-to-use os as well. We have Linspire, formerly Lindows, which is a very good operating system for switching from Linux to Windows. It contains features individual to the operating system, like LPhoto, LSongs, and Linspire Instant Messenger (based on gaim), plus an office suite based on Mozilla. These make it very easy to use. And the layout of the desktop makes it very obvious where to go. Honestly, I don?t think it feels like Linux. You can take that however you want.

But Windows is easier. It invented MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer (although I hate it), Windows Media Player, the Start Menu, which is laid out in a genius way, a great control panel, and the list only gets bigger from there. I could get deep into all the features of these programs, but put very simply, they are friendly and easy to use, even if they aren?t always the best and the safest.

The Power of Open Source

This one is obvious to hard-core computer users, but many people have no idea what open source is. I didn?t hear about it until I started using Linux. But open source means anyone can change the way a program works. The source of the program is not only allowed to be edited, but it is encouraged. With open source, volunteers can make the program much better, and give their ideas out to anyone else so that the program continues to improve.

What is my point? Linux is open source, a giant program that gets constantly contributed to. Everyone has ideas, and many people put them forth. Programs like ndiswrapper, madwifi, and Linux-NTFS, all add to the Linux kernel. Even better, you yourself can easily open up the kernel source and change anything you like, but you should know what you?re doing. Someone will ALWAYS be able to help you change something on linuxquestions.org and other support forums. So, open source is the way of the future, the free way. Not always as in ?free beer?, but more as ?free speech?, with a few beers to start you off much of the time.

What about Windows? Sure, you can patch a few DLL?s, but chances are you?ll screw your computer up in the process. Microsoft doesn?t want its source out. Its top secret, like the familys secret recipe for spaghetti sauce, but guests don?t get to even touch it. Windows source is hidden behind locked doors. And a lot of them, as it turns out.. As a result, Windows is slow on development because volunteers can?t improve it. There is still open source software for windows, but no system changes can easily be made.

The penguin doesn?t need a pharmacist!

Linux is based on Unix. Unix is secure. Linux is secure. You get the picture?

Almost no viruses can get through Linux. Sure, there are a few security threats here and there, but so few, you?ll feel like you?re in the highest security prison in the world, but not one of the prisoners, of course.

But on Windows, you?re a prisoner in a prison made of dirt walls. Norton AntiVirus provides good security, but have you ever run LiveUpdate a bunch of times in a row? You get virus definition updates every time. So, what if you can?t afford Norton? You put your Windows desktop at huge risk, and others at huge risk, too! I know someone who got a virus that sent itself to everyone on their MSN Messenger list. Then, it started eating their computer. And Norton doesn?t always do the job.

Order some power, if you want

This is a tough topic. Linux users boast about the power they get from the command line. Windows users boast that they have never touched a command line because everything can be done in a graphical way.

Linux has hundreds, maybe thousands, possibly even millions of commands from the command line. You can install programs from the command line, you can open programs from the command line, and many programs are command-line only, which greatly increases speed. And the Linux command line is very comfortable and customizable (transparent background, different colors, etc.) if you use it in X, but you can also go back to the early days to the big black screen with white text on it, which greatly improves speed again because X isn?t necessarily running.

On Windows, you don?t need the command line, usually. Most things can be done from the control panel, without the command window, without a big black screen. Windows also doesn?t offer you many things to destroy your computer. It?s all graphical and comfortable.

Price vs. free

Has anyone noticed the major price tags on Windows? Has anyone seen a lot of price tags on Linux? I?ll answer that. Windows is very expensive, in the $100-$500 range. Linux is often free, with a few exceptions. The big Linux distros are expensive, like Linspire, Red Hat, and Mandriva, but Linspire has a free live-CD, Red Hat sponsors Fedora, which is free, and Mandriva only puts prices on their special products.

Conclusion

If I had kept score on this article, Linux would have won, 5-3. But if I were a judge, not keeping score, but giving a mark, than I would have given both of these operating systems an 8 out of 10. They aren?t both perfect, and that?s where they lose those 2 points, but they are both equal, in my opinion. They are both great.

Simon ???

July 12, 2005

Edited July 24, 2005 by simeandrews

[turkishdelight]

They aren?t both perfect

Thank you very much for writing that, especially the part I quote:yes:s: . It's what everyone realizes about their OS, but nobody seems to be able to admit it openly.

Now you've motivated me to try and write more about my own Linux experienc:):)

[Kreuger]

Hey not bad, good thing it's only rough copy though because it's kinda cluttered. I wrote up my own sorta review on Linux. You can view it in my attachment

Linux_review.doc

[markwolfe Veteran]

First off, you have a fairly well-written quick overview/comparison between Windows and Linux.

Now for some critiques (these are areas where other people may pounce on, and some will do it rather rudely):

Style and Comfort

"Linux doesn?t come with great styles standard.i>". What distro(s) or Desktop Environment do you mean? KDE and Gnome both came with many options, and some looked very good (I don't use KDE or Gnome, so I don't have a lot of experience there). Windows comes with two (and one is the 'classic'). I would not write up doing hacks as an overly positive Windows feature, because it inotu> a feature they offer, it is a 'hack' into the dlls (unsupported).Completnessb>

You mention the "perfect" control panel and "legendary" start menu as great Windows features. I don't see anything stellar there.Ease of useb>

&quoBut Windows is easier.i>" Is it? Or are you just more familiar/comfortable with it as "a Windows user [your] whole life"? My three year old "uses" my Linux PC. I would not trust him (or expect him to know how) to administer it. Nor would I expect him to do so on my wife's Windows box. Saying "Windows seems easier" or "is easier for me" would be a better wording.

&quoIt invented MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer...i>" and so on. Well, none of these technologies were "invented" by Microsoft at all. IE used (and still does) other licensed technology.

Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic; was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

They do a good job of packaging them up and integrating them into the Windows OS (so much so, that they really can't be removed).The penguin doesn?t need a pharmacist!

&qLinux is secure&quot:o :o Oh my! No one should claim that any product (whether an application or an Operating System) is "secure". A misconfigured or out-of-date system is insecure. It is up to administrator to set the system up properly, and up to the (less-privileguser to use good computing practices. You would be better to say that the Unix/Linux security model encourages more secure practices, or that you believe it to be a better model. Just don't say that "xxxx is secure".

Finally, I agree with you 100% that you cannot conclude that one OS is better overall than the other. Both Linux and Windows are capable OSes. One or the other may be more suited for any individual user's needs, but that does not speak ill of the other OS.

Oh, and one last thing... You might want to break up yoru text to more clearly define your sections. Use of blank lines and/or emphasized characters to help the reader follow your document more easily would be a good idea.

I think you did a fairly unbiased compari(Y) (Y) (even if you don't agree with my comments abo;)) ;)

[Malbojia]

Well you know I enjoyed reading the article, the ups and down of both OS. Heres a tip the power users and admins of Windows have to know the cmd line by heart. For tracking down network problems to setting up printers and viewing them with net view, to making start up scripts for the GPO of an OU group.

In the server world both have to be used in a command line state. In the desktop world windows gets less usage of it but hey, I'd rather open up a cmd and type in taskview and do a taskkill /PID /F.

Once again it's a nice artcile on how they're not both quite finished at all.

[Simon Veteran]

Thanks for your feedback, and all the suggestions. This article is turning out better than I thought, I thought a lot of people would complain, but I've only had one critic (thanks, BTW), and a few people pointed out typos. I did a bit of research for this (ie downloaded LinspireLive), but not enough to really get specific things.

Thanks everyone, and keep the comments coming!

markjensen: I agree with everything you said.

[protoss_chaos]

Price vs. free

Has anyone noticed the major price tags on Windows? Has anyone  seen a lot of price tags on Linux? I?ll answer that. Windows is very expensive, in the $100-$500 range. Linux is often free, with a few exceptions. The big Linux distros are expensive, like Linspire, Red Hat, and Mandriva, but Linspire has a free live-CD, Red Hat sponsors Fedora, which is free, and Mandriva only puts prices on their special products.

586200312[/snapback]

Linux is free, however support for it is not, unless you pay for the software which means it is no longer free. I can remember reading that the Total Cost or operating is actually higher for linux due to the complexity of the problems that can arise, and also the cost of support etc.

Neither one is perfect, and they both have their uses, however i prefer Windows... there is just so much more software that only runs on windows. Just my opinion.

[jack_canada]

Linux is free, however support for it is not, unless you pay for the software which means it is no longer free.  I can remember reading that the Total Cost or operating is actually higher for linux due to the complexity of the problems that can arise, and also the cost of support etc.

Neither one is perfect, and they both have their uses, however i prefer Windows... there is just so much more software that only runs on windows.  Just my opinion.

586201089[/snapback]

The documentations are free, and there's free community support like mailing list, irc, forums, and you don't have to pay.

[Simon Veteran]

Free support is the most common Linux support. Just look at LinuxQuestions.org!

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ Remember, quite often time is money. ;)

However, I have never run into any significant Linux issues. Most of it was just the "learning" time that I knew I would have to invest.

[trance]

Free support is the most common Linux support. Just look at LinuxQuestions.org!

586201425[/snapback]

The free support is *generally* only adequate for the home user... the simple problems that are hit all the time. However in the enterprise, or when real debugging is required, or when a problem only arises in a particular configuration, the free support tends to be inadequate, and you need to pay for real engineers to look and debug.

[Simon Veteran]

Hey not bad, good thing it's only rough copy though because it's kinda cluttered. I wrote up my own sorta review on Linux. You can view it in my attachment

586200889[/snapback]

Can I nuse that as a reference? I still have a lot to do on this, and I'm probably going to add some more sections. It has some good things that I missed.

[BajiRav]

a good article but I noticed an interesting typo

Windows is the most sued os.

:laugh: I hope you mean used. either way its true :rofl:

Also the section about Norton AV needs to be rewritten. Since there are better solutions available for AV, and norton is not the best of them all.

[markwolfe Veteran]

The free support is *generally* only adequate for the home user... the simple problems that are hit all the time. However in the enterprise, or when real debugging is required, or when a problem only arises in a particular configuration, the free support tends to be inadequate, and you need to pay for real engineers to look and debug.

586201465[/snapback]

Bah. Those businesses buy support contracts for Windows, and other software, too.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Second reply, because this is completely back on-topic. :shifty:

It might be very interesting to point out updating in your comparison. Linux whips Windows hands-down when it comes to keeping a whole PC up to date. :yes:

[Simon Veteran]

a good article but I noticed an interesting typo

:laugh: I hope you mean used. either way its true  :rofl:

Also the section about Norton AV needs to be rewritten. Since there are better solutions available for AV, and norton is not the best of them all.

586201492[/snapback]

The guys on the other forum found that amusing.

And could you help me out a bit with that? I always thought of Norton as the best. If you could give me a few references for it, that'd be great.

[trance]

Bah.  Those businesses buy support contracts for Windows, and other software, too.

586201507[/snapback]

That is very right.... windows also has TONS of free support available... but again, generally only good for the home user or in more simplistic business situtations. For the complicated config, or for very one-off issues, you need a qualified engineer (for whatever OS) to look at and debug it.

Home users don't buy support contracts, businesses do, for whatever OS you are on. Same thing goes for MacOS.

For simple problems there are simple solutions. Harder problems, harder solutions.

That was my point.

[Simon Veteran]

It might be very interesting to point out updating in your comparison. Linux whips Windows hands-down when it comes to keeping a whole PC up to date. yes.gif

That's one of the sections in the next one. I thought about it when I was eating a sandwitch, and a good sandwitch it was. I'm probably ging to do a bit of editing tonight, and put it out tomorrow.

[BajiRav]

The guys on the other forum found that amusing.

And could you help me out a bit with that? I always thought of Norton as the best. If you could give me a few references for it, that'd be great.

586201517[/snapback]

well again its a matter of personal opinion and the individual user's competency in managing his/her system.

I rarely had any problems with intrusions/virii/worms etc with my Windows. Mostly I required protection from office documents that I receive from my friends who have problems.

In any case I prefer AVG Antivirus from Grisoft over others.

1. because its free :D and yet has all the necessary features

2. still its well supported (regular updates)

3. light weight, it's very small footprint compared to norton or mcafee

mostly you can say that Windows has major virus problems due to various reasons (including MS's stupid mistakes....:D please see how you can right that in a better way) but mostly they can be avoided by various solutions (give a bunch of AV names, check out relevant NW forums) + basic smartness on the part of user.

really speaking, I don't know how I would put that. :blush: As you know its very easy to criticise others :p but very difficult to come up with your own solution :pinch:

[BajiRav]

That's one of the sections in the next one. I thought about it when I was eating a sandwitch, and a good sandwitch it was.? I'm probably ging to do a bit of editing tonight, and put it out tomorrow.

586201534[/snapback]

you might want to include hardware support as well. interestingly I tried latest ubuntu yesterday, linux after a gap of almost 4-5 years. I found it rather well going (installation, haven't used it since to comment on usability)

There are few glitches I found weird but may be mostly I am used to easier XP/OSX routines. (I think this is completely off topic)

1. The installation is split in 2 parts and 2nd part is not actually "linux installation" but apps install/config but I did not get any such info during it. It was confusing since I saw same files being copied/set up 3 times

2. it is very verbose and lacks any graphical covers to hide behind so that avg joe is comfortable with it. All I had was 20 mins of scrolling text that occupied my entire screen.

3. Since I had problems with the 1st system's hardware (no sound, no network), I moved the hard drive after installation to a standard AMD Athlon. and ubuntu did not handle hardware change at all. x11 just refused to show up and so did any automatica hardware detection routine. I found it easier to do a clean install. The last time I did this with Windows (was 2k I think), Windows automatically ran the new hardware (wizard?) and installed everything (asking me for drivers if required).

Although not many users are likely to do this, but is shows advantage Windows has in this.

I must say that I am not at all familiar with Linux and many of the problems I faced could've been solved easily. But few searches and suggestions I found on google/ubuntu were not helpful.

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ problem with that comparison (items #1 & 2) is that you are comparing "Ubuntu", which does lack the graphical installer. It would be unfair to say "Linux lacks a GUI installer" and so forth.

With #3, I have no idea what you are describing. It sounds exactly backwards, as a drive with Linux can typically be moved between different chipset/archetectures (not talking major CPU archetectures, like PPC to SPARC to x86), whereas Windows is notorious for not coping with a move like that (no boot).

[turkishdelight]

In the server world both have to be used in a command line state. In the desktop world windows gets less usage of it but hey, I'd rather open up a cmd and type in taskview and do a taskkill /PID /F.

Whereas I would much rather use CTRL+SHIFT+ESC click processname click End Task. Typing PIDs isn't the least frustrating thing ;) But maybe that's just me because I'm more used to a client environment.

As for verbose installers, I like to have a sort of hybrid installation environment, where you can view a nice, pretty GUI and point/click install as well as view a verbose console output.

[Simon Veteran]

If you want a nice graphical installer, try Mandriva, Fedora, or (from what I hear) SuSE.

Mandriva also has a big hardware compatability list.

[turkishdelight]

By the way, the following applies to just about evey distro of Linux:

Linux is not necessarily free, but many distros are free.

and

Linux is Free.

Note that "free" and "Free" are different.

[Kreuger]

Noone wants to comment on my take? :(

EDIT: I prefer to use this as my way to kill off a process

ps ax | grep *processname* 

(without the stars) then

kill PID