Which OS is right for you?

[i_was_here]

Correct, but not necessarily an issue for experienced users. I run Vista without any kind of software protection (just router firewall) and haven't had any malware problems with it for years.

Thats the keyword right there. I too could run Windows without antivirus etc, but Im not the average computer user.

[Growled Member]

How would you suggest I add more detail? I know it needs it, but it's not that easy. :huh:

Maybe an overview of each OS in simple terms, like Windows is the best in a business environment and for gamers, OS X is traditionally better for video editing and Linux is better for people who like to tweak and how it uses the repository system to update the entire system, apps and all. Those sort of things.

[andrewbares]

A few of your points I'd like to comment on:

Although I agree with the statements, what makes your essay very weak in general and on this point in particular is the lack of proof or argumentation. What kind of software Windows supports that is less easily available on other platforms? You could have named video games for instance. You could have named Visual Studio, or Google Chrome.

You're points were perfect! And there wasn't any bias in them either. I wish you wrote the review.

[WelshBluebird]

Should probably mention the OEM versions of Windows that you can get too.

[thealexweb]

Vista and Snow Leopard would never be compared in a proper review, Vista has a replacement and Snow Leopard is a Beta still. You either compare 2 stables Windows 7 and Mac OS X 10.5 or 2 unstables.

[Subject Delta]

This seems to be a basic regurgitation of what other people share around the internet, and Vista doesn't have unnecessary services and processes that slow down your computer, that is a myth not a fact. No offence, but if you wish to write a serious article it pays to actually do your research and get facts, it also pays to be objective and unbiased.

[Guest]

I use Windows Vista Business 64-bit Service Pack 2 and it behaves very well. Sick of people talking bull**** about Vista. It's a great OS with a few bugs. Maybe they rushed the release, I don't know...

Anyway, don't see Windows 7 being that better. Consumes less resources, new taskbar.. Other than that is just Vista with a few checks.

[Lord Ba'al]

Thanks for the reply. Any input on the review itself? Is there any way I can make it so the review doesn't become unapplicable over time?

You could mention that there are many other Linux distributions, not just Ubuntu. You should at least mention the major distributions: Mandriva, Fedora, openSuse.

[BALAJI.P.M.]

Windows is right for me!

Now We Compare the all with windows!

LINUX vs. WINDOWS

A comparison of Linux and Windows

Some Windows people (the smart ones in my opinion) are opting to stick with XP and avoid Vista. Dell initially converted all their new consumer machines from XP to Vista, although they and others always sold business targeted machines with XP. Responding to consumer demand (businesses were not going to use Vista for a long time anyway), Dell backtracked in April 2007 and re-introduced new consumer machines with XP pre-installed. Heresy. Microsoft could not have been happy.

And then ... along came Linux. In May 2007 Dell announced they would start to offer consumer machines with Ubuntu Linux vesion 7.04 pre-installed. You have to wonder if Vista is driving people to Linux. Oh, and Michael Dell runs Ubuntu Linux on a computer at his home (April 18, 2007).

Martin Ultima, the person behind the Ultima Linux distribution, does not see a future for Linux on desktop computers. His reasons: video drivers are too hard to set up, many distributions omit Flash, a working media player, 3D graphics and some fonts, there are too many distributions, software development on Linux is "painful", poor support for WiFi, printers and other hardware, and poor OS documentation. He also points out the 12 years after Windows introduced CD auto-mounting, it is just starting to appear in mainstream Linux distributions. (paragraph added July 20, 2007)

On the Personal Computer show in December 2003 John C. Dvorak predicted a bright future for Linux. His main points being: it's free, the applications are getting more mainstream, Open Office is a "fabulous" product, the GUI is pretty much like Windows, it's high quality, bullet proof and resistant to the thousands of Windows viruses and worms. If he owned a company with thousands of PCs, he would put everyone on Linux.

To date the only organizations (that I've heard about) using hundreds or thousands of Linux based computers are government agencies in countries all over the world. They may be driven by cost and/or security concerns (practically speaking there are no Linux viruses). Some countries also may not like being beholden to a U.S. based company for so much of their software.

See More Balls Through Windows from The Economist April 20, 2004 on cfo.com. Is Microsoft finally about to face real competition in desktop-computer software? This article raises a point I agree with. The next version of Windows, the one that will replace XP, is not going to be delivered for a long time opening up a window of opportunity for Linux. In addition, the upcoming version of Windows is likely to be expensive and require new hardware, two other areas where Linux competes well. It may also involve too many changes. By the time it's delivered, more and more Linux distributions will look more like Windows, just as Microsoft rolls out a new user interface. People accustomed to the current Windows UI may resist the change.

However, Microsoft fights the spread of Linux at all costs. For example, when Thailand was going to make government subsidized Linux based computers available throughout the country, Microsoft cut a deal with the Thai Information, Communication and Technology Ministry. People in Thailand can buy Windows XP and Office XP (without Outlook) pre-installed, activated, and ready to run for the equivalent of $37 US dollars. See Microsoft offers cut-rate Windows from CNET News.com February 9, 2004. Then again, the governments of China, Japan and South Korea are teaming up to create their own Asian flavor of Linux.

http://' target="_blank">

[Growled Member]

This seems to be a basic regurgitation of what other people share around the internet, and Vista doesn't have unnecessary services and processes that slow down your computer, that is a myth not a fact.

That well may be but Vista is bloated and slow when compared to XP and 7. I guess many presume that it's because of background stuff.

[Guest]

That well may be but Vista is bloated and slow when compared to XP and 7. I guess many presume that it's because of background stuff.

lol well let me tell you that in my computer xp is slow compared to vista. Yes, I have a recent laptop. So don't blame the os, blame the hardware.

[Growled Member]

lol well let me tell you that in my computer xp is slow compared to vista. Yes, I have a recent laptop. So don't blame the os, blame the hardware.

You must have a driver problem.

Why do you think netbooks run XP instead of Vista?

[closetgeek]

I preferred Windows 98SE to XP or Vista. Not tried 7 yet.

98 booted up in 30 seconds, and that was on one slooow ass computer, back in the day. It's weird how technology has come so far, but I've never seen any OS boot up so quickly since.

[Guest]

You must have a driver problem.

Why do you think netbooks run XP instead of Vista?

First it's not a driver problem

Second i do not have a netbook. I wrote laptop.

And I never said Vista wasn't hardware demanding. It is, but it takes better use of recent hardware than XP. XP is past. I see nothing worth going back to it. Neither should you unless you have a dinosaur...

[Growled Member]

Oh, I use Vista and prefer it to XP any day but it is does use a lot more resources. 7 doesn't use as much and neither does XP. I call that bloated. You can call it what you want. :)

[Guest]

Oh, I use Vista and prefer it to XP any day but it is does use a lot more resources. 7 doesn't use as much and neither does XP. I call that bloated. You can call it what you want. :)

I call it a better OS that XP. And I believe 7 will be even better. But when you have 4GB of RAM like I do you don't care about the memory it consumes... XP < Vista < 7

[Andre S. Veteran]

Oh, I use Vista and prefer it to XP any day but it is does use a lot more resources. 7 doesn't use as much and neither does XP. I call that bloated. You can call it what you want. :)

Windows 7 uses more disk space than Vista (16GB vs 15GB) and has the same memory requirements.

[Windbag]

I still prefer Windows XP SP3. Thinking of upgrade to W7... But still not sure.

[zeta_immersion]

i use mostly xp due to old hardware but i also use osx/linux/unix-freebsd ... all have their purpose ... i wish there could be an os that would combine all 4 ... but that may be asking too much

[thealexweb]

Vista, it's by far the best OS I've ever used. I'm not joking, it was pre installed on my laptop when I got it. I've tried Windows 7 on the same laptop but no matter what I do it just can't match Vista's speed, I was really a clunker of an OS. Windows 7 to me is also buggy as hell.

[Fraud OS 11]

Windows XP is beyond perfect for me after SP2 which fixed the security issues. It is the last OS that didn't remove or move around a bootload of features I used.

[ultimate99]

Windows XP is beyond perfect for me after SP2 which fixed the security issues. It is the last OS that didn't remove or move around a bootload of features I used.

wow, look at them features!! :rolleyes:

using win7.

[Zapadlo]

Perfect flame thread...

[Windbag]

Perfect flame thread...

BTW, great nickname! ;)