Windows vs. Linux

[BajiRav]

^^^? 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 fnot/i> coping with a move like that (no boot).

586201659[/snapback]

yeah I know the "problem" might be Ubuntu's lack of graphical installer. I am not sure if my earlier post gave an impression of "Linux lacks a GUI installer" but I did not wish to say that.

To be honest both machines belong to a friend of mine who has them custom built. The PC we tried first on was based on Duron using really cheap parts (~$100 excluding monitor/keyboard/mouse). Since the network card & onboard audio did not work, I moved to his other system which runs windows. I just replaced the HDD into this other AMD Athlon XP system (onboard audio, NIC and PCI wireless). Ubuntu booted...tried to start x11 and gave error and came back to command line. and since I am completely unfamiliar with Linux (of ne kind), I had no idea what to do next. I tried this FAQ off Ubuntu (even though it is not for hoary) to no use.

frankly I've no idea about the chipset except that his PCI wireless card is D'Link which was very nicely detected by ubuntu when I formatted and carried out the setup again. The setup got both network cards (dlink wireless + onboard) and worked just fine on wireless thereafter, painless to say it right

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

Mandriva also has a big hardware compatability list.

586201726[/snapback]

I know about Mandrake/SuSe but wanted to give a shot at Ubuntu. I have tried Mandrake/SuSe installation in the past with a friend but not past installation since I was least interested then.

[Simon Veteran]

Ok, I'm making my revisions now. I'm not going to be able to add much once I am finished, so if you think something is missing, you should bring it up soon.

Just so you know, in the published version, after the final which you're going to see within the next day hopefully, there will be screenshots comparing Linux & Windows.

So, get your comments in! I want more to fill this thing up!

[Simon Veteran]

Ok, here's the semi-final copy of the article. Its still not completely finished, because I added a few new sections that may need changing.

Windows vs. Linux: My Opinion

Semi-Final 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.

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

Windows has had an OK, semi-graphical installer dating back to at least Windows 3.1. Its been easy to use, and very descriptive. The installer really evolved with the release of Windows XP, with a light blue background and a glare effect in the top left corner. It also has a style similar to that of Windows XP itself.

Linux, on the other hand, wasn?t very good until recently. But now SuSE, Mandriva, Red Hat, Linspire, and so many others have a graphical installation equal or better than the Windows installation, because they release new versions of their software so often, they can change the installer.

But not only do the new Linux installers look great, but they are a lot easier now, too! It is obvious what to do, even on non graphical installers, and because of that, installation can be done faster for newbies, and for advanced users, tooInstalling Programs

Here?s a really tough one. Installing programs is almost always a breeze in Windows, but in Linux you often have easy access to programs through apt-get, yum, urpmi, etc. Then again, if it?s not there you have to search online for a dist specific installer, like rpm or deb packages. If you can?t find them, you have to install from source. If you install from source, it might have trouble finding the ?libraries? needed.

For a lot of you that probably made no sense. Allow me to explain.

Windows has a bunch of graphical installers, like Windows installer and Nullsoft Install System. Most people know that.

On Linux, there is no standard graphical installer that developers can customize ie they can?t add images and change text unless they write it themselves. There are probably some install systems floating around, but the standard ones are very plain.

For example, RPM is the most common install package for Linux. To install a package, in newer versions, you can double click the file, or, you can go (on a command line):

Rpm ?I package-name.rpm

Also, you can use urpmi or yum to download and install these packages for you, by doing this on a command line.

Yum ?I package-to-search-for

Urpmi package-to-search-for

Another one similar to those is a[t-get, but I think that?s designed for Debian and uses the deb extension, and I don?t know much about that.

But packages aren?t always available for your system in deb or rpm form. In that case, you have to compile them. This can be easy, or it can be hard. Most things can be compiled by typing (using gaim, an instant messaging service, as an example)

Cd gaim

./configure

Make

Su

(enter root password)

Make install

So, most of that seems simple enough. But it isn?t always. A lot of errors can occur, sending you searching for more packages to install. This is partially resolved in Mandriva. When you install an rpm package, if it can?t install because of missing programs, Mandriva will search for those on URPMI, ask you if you want to install them, and then install everything needed. The only problem is that not all programs in the world are on URPMI.

Still, if everything goes well, then installing on Linux can be easier than installing on Windows. All you have to do is double click an RPM, press next, and start. While in Windows, you have to read a EULA,Style and Comfort tc.

Style and Comfort

Linux doesn?t come with great styles standard. Athough it has some nice ones, they aren?t quite up to the level of other OSes. 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. Also, you can download some third party sCompletenessn?t please you.

Completeness

No installation is more complete than a Linux installation. Many, if not most, Linux ?distros? come with office software, at least 2 different ?Window Managers?, mostly up-to-date, but some not so much games, and some distro specific things, like a control panel and some styles created or bought by the company that makes the distribution. 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 well built start menu, a nicely organized control panel, and the compatibility to install almost anything else, because Ease of uset used operating system.

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. One of the easy-to-use distros is Linspire, formerly Lindows, which is designed for switching from Linux to Windows. It contains features individual to the operating system, like LPhoto, LSongs, and Linspire Instant Messenger (based on gaim, and including PhoneGaim), plus a web browser based on Mozilla. These make it very easy to use. And the layout of the desktop makes it very obvious where to go. The only problem is, it costs money, and it doesn?t feel much like Linux. Its Linux when you get down under the hood, but up above, it?s hardly a car at all.

But Windows is easier. It owns MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer (although I hate it), Windows Media Player, Windows AntiSpyware, the list goes on. Very simply, those programs are nice and easy to use,. And make theThe Power of Open Sourcemore comfortable.

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 a Linux support forum. 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 free 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 The penguin doesn?t need a pharmacist! can easily be made.

The penguin doesn?t need a pharmacist!

Linux is based on unix, and unix has a higher security standard as Windows. So, Linux is a lot more secure than Windows.

There aren?t very many viruses for 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 MessengerOrder some power, if you want 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 most things 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, (the program that enables graphical Desktop Environments), 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 doPrice vs. freey 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, ReStaying Up-To-Dateich is free, and Mandriva only puts prices on their special products.

Staying Up-To-Date

On Windows, Microsoft puts updates out for their products maybe once a month on Windows Update or Microsoft Update. Linux releases updates 28-31 times faster. Yu p, many parts of Linux, like the programs, the kernel, the desktop environments, EVERYTHING involving Linux, are updated every day with security fixes, bug fixes, and sometimes new features. Linux also comes with some features to automatically update the system. Apt-get, urpmi, yum, YaST (I think, someone tell me if that?s right please), and the Red Hat Updater, are included in the distributions, what ones varies by the distro. Sure, WindowsConclusionck to the top of this paragraph, only once a month do they put out the updates.

Conclusion

If I had kept score on this article, Linux would have won, 6-4. 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 13, 2005

[ichi]

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.

586201647[/snapback]

I had exactly the opposite experience.

I had both Gentoo linux and WinXP installed in an AthlonXP 1800+ box with a Soltek mobo (via chipset). I replaced the mobo with a Gigabyte one (nforce3 chipset) and put an AMD64 instead of the AthlonXP. Gentoo booted nicely stright to fluxbox, while Windows seemed to consider for a while the idea of booting, just to die showing a nasty BSOD.

[SojIrOu]

uh i wonder why no one pointed this out. but in the first line it should be "my" instead of "y" shouldn't it?

[Simon Veteran]

Ok, here's a new section. It goes in between Installation and Installing Programs.

Try before you Buy! And don?t install anything on your hard drive!

With Windows, if you want to try it, you buy it install it, and if you don?t like it, you don?t use it. That?s different on Linux. Linux has the option of using ?Live CD?s?. They have a Linux system, often fully featured, often not, loaded onto a CD, with no need to install. You put the CD in your CD drive, restart the computer, and voila! It detects some hardware, starts up the kernel, and puts you into KDE or Gnome, the desktop environments. Sometimes they use lighter desktop environments, sometimes called window managers, like Fluxbox and XFCE. Although the CD?s aren?t nearly as fast as the actual Linux OS, they have everything there to show you the advantages and disadvantages, sadly, about Linux.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I had exactly the opposite experience.

I had both Gentoo linux and WinXP installed in an AthlonXP 1800+ box with a Soltek mobo (via chipset). I replaced the mobo with a Gigabyte one (nforce3 chipset) and put an AMD64 instead of the AthlonXP. Gentoo booted nicely stright to fluxbox, while Windows seemed to consider for a while the idea of booting, just to die showing a nasty BSOD.

586206238[/snapback]

True. I just ran across a thread in this same situation with Windows: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=343701

Windows just doesn't handle a hardware change like that very well, as it requires "Windows" to boot up before being able to use their hardware wizard.

Overall, the revised article is much better, though. (Y)

[Simon Veteran]

I'm throwing together some screenshots now, since it doesn't seem like anything new is going to be added.

If anyone does want to change anything, PLEASE tell me soon

[lanvo]

what about the security issue when Linux Vs Windows? which one is more secure and harder to hack... i heard you said that linux is open source so does that means everyone knows the code for it? as everytime there's a rumor that windows has leak their OS source code, everyone was afraid...

[markwolfe Veteran]

what about the security issue when Linux Vs Windows? which one is more secure and harder to hack... i heard you said that linux is open source so does that means everyone knows the code for it? as everytime there's a rumor that windows has leak their OS source code, everyone was afraid...

586207554[/snapback]

A bit off-topic for this thread, but in summary: no. Access to the source code in Linux does not make is less secure.

On the other hand, the concern with the Windows source code leak was that Microsoft often relies on "Security through Obscurity". It was thought that a source code leak would allow more eyes on the code, and therefore more vunerabilities to be publicly exposed. I don't see any evidence that this has had any security impact for them, either.

[Simon Veteran]

Can someone give me some good screenshots of Windows XP installation? All I can find is photographs, but I think there are screenshots out there.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I did a quick google, and didn't find anything in the first few hits.

You can make some yourself by downloading a free trial of vmware and installing XP under it, and making screenies of what you need. (Y)

[Barney T. Administrators]

One thing that struck me... this is really just editorializing here..........

Microsoft has spent an astonishing amount of resouces (money, people) to confuse and muddy people's perception about Linux. Look at their PR about Linux. And their "independent" studies that they fronted the money for. It is SO wrong. The deceit that they spew is almost unethical. I understand why they do it (survival) but it just doesn't seem kosher to me.

On the other hand, a high percentage of Linux users could care less what OS people use. They use Linux because it suits their computing needs (no matter what the reason it). The world of computing is vast... like a large tree. Who cares what branches one plays in? There is room for everyone! :yes:

Barney

[Simon Veteran]

Barneyt, good observation, I agree 100%. That's the point of this article, they both have weaknesses and they both have strengths, and that's why people should have their own choice and not be cornered into "don't use that, its not safe".

And markjensen, I don't have a way of installing xp into vmware, I have a recovery CD that came with my PC.

[Barney T. Administrators]

BTW:

Excellent writing! You should be proud that you researched this topic thoroughly and produced a quality piece of work! :p

Barney

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ Borrow a friend's CD? I think it would fall under "fair use" of copyright, as you are doing this for documentation purposes, and will remove once you get the screenies.

[Simon Veteran]

None of my friends have it, they all recently bought brand-name PC's, so the closest I have is my brothers CD that was designed for his Dell PC.

[mr_demilord]

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

586201953[/snapback]

or killall processname :yes:

[Simon Veteran]

Well, its been a while, but I guess its time you should see the preview of the final article when its in my website. So I packaged the base of the page (background images etc) and the article, with screenshots (not all final).

There you go, enjoy, and report bugs. I had to skin it down to the bone to attatch it.

windowsvslinuxprev.zip

[laz45]

Linux is better

http://mirror1.spikedhumor.com/1209/SwitchLinux.swf

[Simon Veteran]

The point is, they both have weaknesses and strengths. Saying one is better is wrong.

[Simon Veteran]

Any feedback?

[Simon Veteran]

Well, this article is finally complete, for the time being. To see the final copy with screenshots and other fancy stuff, go to r360.co.nr, click the red button on the top of the page that says "Reviews", and you'll find it near the bottom.

[jagwire]

I am not one to flame, and I didn't really read the entire article, but Linux is not something I will ever accept being judged by something in 8th grade, or whatever the case is for you, I think age is a key point to using Linux. Linux and windows do have there ups and downs, but for some people Linux could be as useless as leftover cheese wrapper and for others it could be as useful as wearing a pair of shoes everyday or having a refrigerator.

Linux requires patience, the ability to consume data, read and get used to a command line interface, and can take months to years for some people, oh, and I'm in Grade 8 too, but I refuse to even want people to listen to my opinions on operating systems, I like Linux more then Windows because I get to learn, but I am not saying it's a better operating system and anyone else should use it. It has come in useful for me several times while coding in several different languages due to built in compilers, and I respect Linus Torvalds, but photoshop, movie editing and gaming seem to be superior in Windows although I can live with GAIMP (whatever it is..?)

Mac OS X, Windows XP/Vista and Linux are not equal to everyone, it really depends on your needs, your age, and your ability to cooperate and learn.

//**end rant.

[Simon Veteran]

Ouch. So just because I'm in Grade 8, you don't think i should have a vooice on neowin? Thats the impression I got.

I got my message out, and to most people it didn't matter my age.