Microsoft's Linux Guru says Windows More Reliable

[Hurmoth]

How can you rely on something that's not stable :huh:

When did I state that Windows wasn't stable? My point was that Linux is more stable than Windows and Windows is more reliable than Linux. That isn't to say that Windows isn't stable, and Linux isn't reliable... it all depends on what you're doing.

I view Linux more of a server operating system and Windows as a desktop operating system. Linux still has a long way to go before my view of that will change.

Take for instance MP3, or even DVDs. I should be able to put a DVD into my DVD drive and it play, out of the box, but it doesn't do that. I should be able to play my MP3's right out of the box, but it doesn't do that. Linux has come a long way, no arguements there, but it still has a long way to come before it can match up to Windows XP.

[Mathiasdm]

Could you please define 'reliable'. I don't see much of a difference between 'reliable' and 'stable' ;-)

[Miuku.]

Take for instance MP3, or even DVDs.

Very bad example because both of those issues are due to intellectual 'property' and patenting schemes.

MP3 problems will however soon be completely eliminated due to the free open source MP3 decoder that was donated to the OSS community.

[Hurmoth]

Could you please define 'reliable'. I don't see much of a difference between 'reliable' and 'stable' ;-)

reliable

dependable: able to be trusted to do what is expected or has been promised

stable

not changing: steady and not liable to change

That's the actualy definitions.

[alsheron]

Yeah but, no, but, yeah, but no, but, yeah but I like Windows so whatever......... (sarcasm) (This topic is decidedly close to the bone...... for some Neowinners anyway.... :rolleyes: )

1) One of my pet hates is "not being able" to start threads that discuss supposedly "hot" topics. Hence the above.

2) I've used Windows all my life and, properly configured, it's (now - 2000 core) stable and reliable

3) I'd guess Linux, once properly configured is stable, but really don't know whether it would be reliable..... Although most of the webs servers are apparently linux based.....

4) This guy is from Microsoft, which means that he can of course tell the truth, ONLY if he isn't then obliged to say IN ANY WAY that Linux is better than Windows. That's not to say he's lying, just that if he found Linux to be more stable or "better", this "story" would never have been reported because his "findings" would never have been, like, "published".

5) I can't even get my printer installed in Linux, hence i dislike it very much, purely for this. My own fault I guess.... Should be more "clever".

[Mike Mayer]

Their chief linux guru is their janitor.

:devil:

(not making a statement about anything I just thought it was funny)

[Pheee]

Take for instance MP3, or even DVDs. I should be able to put a DVD into my DVD drive and it play, out of the box, but it doesn't do that.

I dont think i have ever installed windows and played a DVD straight away, always need extra software for that.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Take for instance MP3, or even DVDs. I should be able to put a DVD into my DVD drive and it play, out of the box, but it doesn't do that. I should be able to play my MP3's right out of the box, but it doesn't do that. Linux has come a long way, no arguements there, but it still has a long way to come before it can match up to Windows XP.

People always point to those little things about "Linux". Funny, but Linspire supports them out of the box, so it isn't a "Linux" issue at all. It is a software patent issue that companies want to avoid potential litigation.

Plus, out of the box, Linux distros typically include a full Office suite, an excellent photo editing package, a full-featured CD/DVD burning utilities, and much more! All of which are not present when you buy an XP CD. Pointing out "out of the box" issues is rather pointless, when it is easy enough to add these things in.

5) I can't even get my printer installed in Linux, hence i dislike it very much, purely for this. My own fault I guess.... Should be more "clever".

Not your fault, and no reflection on your "clever"ness.

It is a shame, but many manufacturers do not support Linux/Open Source at all. If you are unlucky enough to have hardware that is not compatible, then Linux is probably not the OS for you. It isn't an indicator of how "reliable", "stable" or "good" the software is, either.

Hilf knows who is buttering his bread now, and will say what the "company line" is. For me, Linux has been more reliable for daily computing than Windows ever has.

[Hurmoth]

I dont think i have ever installed windows and played a DVD straight away, always need extra software for that.

Windows Media Player 9 and 10 work just fine for me right out of the box.

Plus, out of the box, Linux distros typically include a full Office suite, an excellent photo editing package, a full-featured CD/DVD burning utilities, and much more! All of which are not present when you buy an XP CD. Pointing out "out of the box" issues is rather pointless, when it is easy enough to add these things in.

I cannot argue that Linux has more out of the box. OpenOffice.org is a very powerful office suite, but compared to Office, I would still pick Office over OOo any day. Regardless, Microsoft could do a lot more with Windows that they don't, but I still feel that Windows is much better than Linux, at least today. Tomorrow might be a different story.

[ichi]

I've yet to find something linux is expected (or advertised) to do that it doesn't do, but then again not everyone expects the same things so I guess all this "reliability" issue is quite subjetive.

[+virtorio MVC]

Windows Media Player 9 and 10 work just fine for me right out of the box.

Strange because it's not supposed to, not untill you install a third party tool like WinDVD or PowerDVD which installs a decoder along with it, or get a decoder from somewhere else.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306318

WMP 10 might be different so if it is just tell me to shut up.

[j79zlr]

reliable

dependable: able to be trusted to do what is expected or has been promised

stable

not changing: steady and not liable to change

That's the actualy definitions.

Microsoft hasn't released a new OS in 4 years. The linux desktop has grown by leaps and bounds since XP's release. It is constantly evolving. I'd pretty much say your argument is simply wrong. Take a look at KDE or Gnome at XP's release and now. Personally I find XP to be quite blah compared to the capabilities of my Linux desktops both stability and eye-candy wise. Its just there for AutoCAD, once I'm done with that, I take a shower and boot back in Gentoo. I can setup Slackware to my liking in maybe 4 hours. XP takes a full day. Sure I've used Linux for quite a few years now, but thats no different than the comparisons usually made to Linux from users who have only had experience with Windows. Anyone with a few years of Linux experience can set it up much faster that its less-than-competent step-child. After having to go to all of the third-party software sites and downloading the updates. Removing the annoying statup programs that everyone needs. Tweaking through the registry. Rebooting 80 times for updates. Fetching drivers for video, sound. Rebooting a couple more times. Installing Antivirus. Installing Spyware Protection. Disabling the Remote Registry service which is enabled by default, for some good reason.....

I'm tired.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Microsoft hasn't released a new OS in 4 years. The linux desktop has grown by leaps and bounds since XP's release. It is constantly evolving. I'd pretty much say your argument is simply wrong. Take a look at KDE or Gnome at XP's release and now. Personally I find XP to be quite blah compared to the capabilities of my Linux desktops both stability and eye-candy wise. Its just there for AutoCAD, once I'm done with that, I take a shower and boot back in Gentoo. I can setup Slackware to my liking in maybe 4 hours. XP takes a full day. Sure I've used Linux for quite a few years now, but thats no different than the comparisons usually made to Linux from users who have only had experience with Windows. Anyone with a few years of Linux experience can set it up much faster that its less-than-competent step-child. After having to go to all of the third-party software sites and downloading the updates. Removing the annoying statup programs that everyone needs. Tweaking through the registry. Rebooting 80 times for updates. Fetching drivers for video, sound. Rebooting a couple more times. Installing Antivirus. Installing Spyware Protection. Disabling the Remote Registry service which is enabled by default, for some good reason.....

I'm tired.

I have to reboot about a third of the time after installing Windows updates, so once every quarter of a year. Yup, real pain in the ass that is. I recall having to reboot Ubuntu after installing the update package too. Big deal.

When Microsoft even suggests bundling an AV and spyware program, people start screaming Monopoly. Blame it on the self-proclaimed monopoly watchdogs who keep Microsoft from putting in necessary components. And yes, AV and spyware are necessary for average users due to the ubiquity of Windows.

The registry does get messy, but whose fault is that? If hardware fails to be recognized on Linux, you blame the hardware manufacturer for not supplying proper drivers, but if the registry gets bloated up in Windows, people blame Microsoft, not the programmers who wrote the damn un/installer script.

I find that for an OS that is half a decade old, WindowsXP does a pretty damn fine job of holding its own against the latest Linux distributions.

[mlerner]

If this Linux Guru was saying this back in the days of Windows 95/98 I'd say he was wrong but today with Windows XP, it's just so much different. I can't remember the last time i've had a blue screen and Windows XP has been extremely reliable for me. I just can't get used to Linux, half of the drivers don't work and I really don't want to have to go the trouble of compiling an application or trying to get something working.

[imtoomuch]

I've seen Windows boxes that were very reliable...

at displaying the blue screen of death.

So mods can troll now? Or should I say can mods still get away with trolling? I'd report you for trolling, but I highly doubt anything would be done about it. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is deleted and I get punished.

Anyway, of course he's say Windows is more reliable, he works for Microsoft!

[macstorm]

The chief Linux guru at Microsoft believes that Windows will maintain its dominance in the desktop space and increase its share in the server space because it is more reliable than Linux. The director of platform strategy at Microsoft, Bill Hilf has lead the Linux and open source software technology group at Redmond for the past two years and formerly headed the global Linux technical strategy of IBM. He says reliability and predicability are the key factors which give Microsoft?s software the edge over Linux and open source alternatives.

Hilf says: ?When I talk to a middle of the road customer that might be indifferent about Microsoft or Linux, one of the words they typically use with me is predictability. How do I know that the software is extraordinarily well tested and predictable?

Source

Original source

Predicting future? Hey, I need you for the next superlotto:angry:gry:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...I can't remember the last time i've had a blue screen...

You should see our laptop (dual boots Windows XP and Ubuntu), haven't had a problem with Ubuntu since i installed it, Windows on the other hand BSOD's during boot every so often, stating "IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", if i reboot into safe mode, log-on (touching nothing), then reboot into normal windows it fixes it for a few more boots, works 9 out of 10 times (once i had to boot into safemode twice, and another time it BSOD while booting safemode).

for a "Windows Laptop" (came with Home), it doesn't seem very "reliable" to me.

My PC on the other hand is stable with windows (until it has it's usual crash or reboot), but Linux on the other hand is unstable (narrowed it down to the chipset, seen other Linux issues related to it).

[XerXis]

Windows Media Player 9 and 10 work just fine for me right out of the box.

neither of them have a dvd encoder out of the box, you need to install a third party dvd encoder before you can play dvd's with wmp

You should see our laptop (dual boots Windows XP and Ubuntu), haven't had a problem with Ubuntu since i installed it, Windows on the other hand BSOD's during boot every so often, stating "IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL", if i reboot into safe mode, log-on (touching nothing), then reboot into normal windows it fixes it for a few more boots, works 9 out of 10 times (once i had to boot into safemode twice, and another time it BSOD while booting safemode).

most likely you have a bad driver, not a windows program

[Brandon Live Veteran]

You should see our laptop (dual boots Windows XP and Ubuntu), haven't had a problem with Ubuntu since i installed it, Windows on the other hand BSOD's during boot every so often, stating "IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL",

You do realize that's a hardware issue, right? Linux/Ubuntu will crash exactly the same on that hardware (assuming you attempt to use the same device(s)).

Either that or it's a very poorly written kernel-mode driver. If you send the error report, Watson will tell you what device caused the problem.

[gigapixels Veteran]

He says that because he's being paid by Microsoft.

Every Linux installation I've had has always been more stable than my Windows installations. That's not to say that my Windows installations aren't stable, but there is the occasional BSOD (very rare for me), whereas any Linux installation has always run with zero issues.

No biggie to me. I still use Windows on a daily basis and I don't even have Linux installed right now as there's no reason for it at the current time.

Edited March 17, 2006 by pixels

[Brandon Live Veteran]

He says that because he's being paid by Microsoft.

Every Linux installation I've had has always been more stable than my Windows installations. That's not to say that my Windows installations aren't stable, but there is the occasional BSOD (very rare for me), whereas any Linux installation has always run with zero issues.

No biggie to me. I still use Windows on a daily basis and I don't even have Linux installed right now as there's no reason for it at the current time.

Every person and every system is going to have a different experience.

Personally, I've found Linux systems to be extremely unreliable. A few years ago when I was still in school, we had a lab that was run by another student which had several Linux and FreeBSD machines. He prided himself on the uptime of the FreeBSD boxes, and was not happy about me bringing a single Windows 2000 machine into the lab.

Needless to say, when the Windows 2000 machine surpassed the uptime of all the others (just after the main FreeBSD server got hacked by some Italian goofs that littered the hard drive with text files and messed with his user accounts)... he was even less happy :)

[BigGiantHead]

I would agree with him, from my point of view. Linux may be a lot more reliable than Windows to some, but honestly it gives me a real headache.

I agree with Hurmoth's complaints. Linux's inability to play MP3's or DVD's out of the box bugs me to death, reagradless of ther reason. Windows does this just fine for me.

Another reason is that I can't install Bluetooth drivers that work, hence I can't get onto the internet.

This all makes Windows much easier to use.

[Malisk]

The chief Linux guru at Microsoft believes that Windows will maintain its dominance in the desktop space and increase its share in the server space because it is more reliable than Linux.

In which applications? In which scenarios? In which configurations? Which distros are we talking about?

All of them? :blink:

There's plenty of apps for Linux that are very reliable with a very mature codebase.

A sign someone is talking bull and just marketing for Microsoft is when they generalize to these extents, because I refuse to believe a "Linux guru" of theirs is simply just dumb enough to say these things, although it appears so.

I'm not biased for Linux; it would be equally stupid to say Linux is more reliable than Windows.

So... He's of course wrong, and so would anyone saying the opposite be. There's more and less mature applications and usage scenarios for both operating systems, and what you choose should depend on what you're going to use it for.

The reason huge corporations use both Linux and Windows depending on who you visit and what they do should be reason alone to believe they're both fit for their respective shares of tasks, so let's dig down the OS bash hammers for a while and observe the reality.

I would agree with him, from my point of view. Linux may be a lot more reliable than Windows to some, but honestly it gives me a real headache.

I agree with Hurmoth's complaints. Linux's inability to play MP3's or DVD's out of the box bugs me to death, reagradless of ther reason. Windows does this just fine for me.

Another reason is that I can't install Bluetooth drivers that work, hence I can't get onto the internet.

This all makes Windows much easier to use.

I don't think he was talking OS support of media and devices, or even ease-of-use, when he talked about reliability... Usually that's two completely different things anyway, with reliability often being about stability.

Edited March 17, 2006 by Jugalator

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

You do realize that's a hardware issue, right? Linux/Ubuntu will crash exactly the same on that hardware (assuming you attempt to use the same device(s)).

Either that or it's a very poorly written kernel-mode driver. If you send the error report, Watson will tell you what device caused the problem.

I know it's possibly a hardware issue (my PC used to get it, turned out the memory was overheating, so i tried MemTest on the laptop to make sure, no problems.), but it happens haphazardly, and Ubuntu hasn't had any issues with any of the hardware.

And i'm using all official drivers that came on the CD, and Windows doesn't know it has crashed when i get it booted, as Watson never pops up.

Edit: i should make it clear, it only happens when booting, once it's up it's stable.

Edited March 17, 2006 by The_Decryptor

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I know it's possibly a hardware issue (my PC used to get it, turned out the memory was overheating, so i tried MemTest on the laptop to make sure, no problems.), but it happens haphazardly, and Ubuntu hasn't had any issues with any of the hardware.

It's definitely hardware related. That particular error usually indicated overheating or bad memory.

But it can also indicate that two devices are sharing an IRQ that don't get along. That can be a trickier one to diagnose, though.