Microsoft vs linux

[elite_syntax]

Why does everyone think that Microsoft is so great?They have so many bugs and they get hcked to much.


My mom and dad think Microsoft is better then linux.I try to tell them why linux is better but there never take my word for it.



So what does everyone think?:eek:

[serz]

Don't listen to them, you will have to do that.

[elite_syntax]

I just love useing linux.Look like they won't be use my network and other computers.

[retoon]

People are afraid of what they do not know. Also, people have open source confused with cheap. I don't know why. I know a few technicians that feel linux will never take off. They are ignorant, and are trying to fool themselves because they don't know anything about linux whatsoever. They probably couldn't spell the word if I asked them to. Also, there is no marketing for it. No television ads, no magazine ads, backing up your statements. Everyone knows about MS, and (cout << First line of text; ) Its ok, not everybody has to run Linux, most people that aren't knowledgable technicians, or enthusiasts don't. (Lets not bring up the stories of how we rigged grandma with linux);) Linux is my idea of the perfect operating system, not necessarily everyone elses.

[elite_syntax]

Linux is more like a hacker's playground.The other thing i don't like is.that my mom say how come you never got your printer working yet.Will my network is not all setup yet.



I just join my first lug group where i live:):D

[lazy13]

Windows is kind of the "For Dummies" series of operating systems. Don't get me wrong a lot of the "For Dummies" books are great. It lets them do what they want to do without learning complexities.

Windows is just more user friendly to people who don't know **** about computers.

[elite_syntax]

scriptkiddie use winblows lmao.:p

[El_Cu_Guy]

My mom and dad think Microsoft is better then linux.

Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar a year corporation. Linux is a kernel. Your comparison makes no sense. :p

[NotQuiteSane]

I think the concept of microsoft, a easy to use operating system the majority of people can utilize with minimal training is a good idea

However, there is a diffrence between concept and reality, which is why I only run linux on my computers

NQS

[Hayl]

imho, if Mac hardware was as cheap as PC hardware, Microsoft wouldn't exist as we know it.

imho, Mac OS is far easier (for the non-computer-literate) than any version of Windows.

[bs_texas]

Originally posted by elite_syntax
Why does everyone think that Microsoft is so great?They have so many bugs and they get hcked to much.

My mom and dad think Microsoft is better then linux.I try to tell them why linux is better but there never take my word for it.

So what does everyone think?:eek:

When I see posts like yours, I am curious about your native language. It seems as if you are just another illiterate young American. But, then, you might have a pretty good grasp of the language if your native language is Asian or European.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine, seeing people in technology with minimal communications skills.

(Disclaimer: I ain't perfect, but I try to use what I know.)

Regards...

[stumbles]

Originally posted by retoon
I know a few technicians that feel linux will never take off.

Hmmm I guess your "friends" consider the Billion or so dollars IBM has spent on Linux is good enough reason to have their position.

[elite_syntax]

Will my poit is to many people are brain wash from Microsoft.:p

[El_Cu_Guy]

I think the concept of microsoft, a easy to use operating system the majority of people can utilize with minimal training is a good idea

Don't you mean Windows? Pehaps you meant Microsoft's concept of an easy to use...

[randabis]

Microsoft's products are so popular because they have the market share. If it weren't for Microsoft's marketing practices, they probably wouldn't be as popular. They also offer so many products and services that a typical user wants. Unfortunately, due to Microsoft's marketing, many of them don't even know of the alternatives, or are scared of the ones they do know about.

They simply provided a product (Windows) that everyone wanted. It's not a very good product (none of their products are), but it does do what most people want it to. And since they already had much of the market hooked on MSDOS, anything graphical and pretty was welcome to the typical MSDOS user.

I think a big reason why alot of people blindly choose their products is because of ignorance and misinformation about the alternatives. Turning Linux into a Windows clone isn't going to help this one bit, but that's another issue....

[NotQuiteSane]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Don't you mean Windows? Pehaps you meant Microsoft's concept of an easy to use...

yeah, thats what i meant. was in a rush

NQS

[carrja99]

I got an interview at a local ISP today. They use NT 4.0, and will soon be upgrading to Windows 2000 (?)

I am still wondering if it was a bad idea to say that my primary experience is with Linux. I also probably should have said yes when asked if I had a MSCE. If they wanted a copy, I could just say I conveniently lost it.

[taser]

i run both operating systems
windows xp
mandrake 9.1

ive gotta say windows xp is a big improvement over any previous windows version, with the exception of windows 2000, over which it only has slight improvements

linux has come a long way as well. like it or not an os will not hold market share unless it is very user friendly, most people will not take the time or effort to learn all that is necessary for linux, however as distros are getting updated the most popular ones (red hat, mandrake, and suse) are trying to become more user friendly

i hope linux will one day be the most popular os out there, but it wont until it is as easy or easier than windows to use

[gibhunter]

The problem is that Linux has a limited software compatibility as most programs out there are designed for M$. Another problem is that most people don't realize that whatever you have to buy for windows to actually make it work, is already available and usually better with any big distro of Linux.

I tried Linux lately and was blown away. Two web browsers, email clients, Acrobat reader AND printer driver, two/three office applications, games galore, etc. In business world you have every server type imaginable with available support all cheaper and faster than M$.

MS ISA is hugely expensive, yet can be easily replaced with Linux. Same goes for MS SQL server, domain controllers can easily be replaced with Samba. Not only can they be had free, there is no requirement for client access licences! I can't even begin to tell you how many businesses are breaking the law by using less CALs than required or even running pirated versions of NT4 and 2000 servers!

The only place where Linux severly lags behind MS is in the business workstation department. Not because it's any worse, but because most software is designed to work with Windows and/or MS Access or SQL server. Untill it changes, Linux won't be viable as a business desktop alternative.

[SoNiCfReAk]

Like it or not Linux will never be mainstream, not because of ease of use but rather the GPL it is under. MacOS X is unix based, a lot of people said unix could never really be mainstream and they were wrong (all it really needed was someone to adopt it and proprietize it) proprietization is key to any mainstream software, and the GPL prohibits such use of the linux kernal. This is probably why Redhat and Mandrake are having a tough time financially.

This is not to say some other company (like one that makes one of the linux distros or maybe even Apple) doesn't take a newer BSD unix kernal and gear it with X11 and KDE and whole wack of opensource linux/unix software and gear it to compete with windows. They would have to make a super easy to use GUI install, windows like package management or maybe even similar to APT-get. Make a windows like control center, advertise it, get big developers making software for it and make all the familar Windows software for it. Basically make a MacOS X like clone and Apple like philosophy for the X86 machines.

[spiderbaby1958]

Let's face it, Linux is a challenge. I've had terrible luck with Linux--a combination of interlocking problems of budget, technology, and isolation. Having no money, not knowing very much, and not being around anyone else who knows anything is difficult. I was one of the last people I knew to get a Pentium class computer, and when I was trying to master windows, I could get useful advice from just about anyone I cared to ask-- coworkers and family members. With Linux, I can't even get any sound advice around here from the computer repair shops! There are lots of places for information online, but reading all this stuff takes time, and you can't always find what you're looking for right away.

I tried to get a dual install going on my computer, and my hard drive failed. Blessedly, it came back to life two days later. I got a second computer at a garage sale, an early pentium with 40 MB Ram for 40 dollars, installed Mandrake 8.1 and found it to work horribly horribly slow. I learned that if I installed Storm Linux it operated really fast, faster than Windows on my 128 MB computer, but I couldn't seem to get the modem working-- and then my cats destroyed my second computer by rocking it back and forth, causing the power source to be repeatedly interrupted, which somehow burnt out the hardware to the mouse. Hoping to at least learn how to use Linux, I tried to use "casualware"-- my name for Linux systems like Knoppix and Phat Linux that work from the cd, with a Windows partition. But I can't get the computer to reboot into DOS! Apparently that's required.

I could tell you more, but this is how it's been going-- one damn thing after another, as if the EVIL GODS OF MICROSOFT were thwarting my every move. So I'm back with Windows, but I know that one day I will be computing in Linux. It seems to be faster, and more reliable, with and all the other advantages of economy and flexibility that we all know about... and may I also say that from the desktop versions of Linux that I've seen, the GUI interface is always so much more beautiful than Windows? The windows interface has such a sterile, corporate look compared to Storm, Mandrake, or especially Red Hat. I have Windows 98, but the new Windows, XE or whatever, seems even more ugly than 98. People have the idea that Linux is a second rate system cause it's free, but the sheer elegance of the recent Linux GUIs belies that-- and for razzle dazzle fun, the Red Hat and Mandrake screen savers are awesome!

Fun is the number 1 reason to use Linux... but I may need to get better resources before I can continue. Even so, visiting this site for the first time in months, and writing about this makes me want to find a way to take another whack at it.

All of my problems with Linux spring from the fact that nobody else I know is using it, and while I love the idea of screwing the Microsoft corporation and having new options, I am not a geek by nature. The main problem that Linux has with breaking into the mainstream is not that it's so much more difficult than MS to operate; it's that people think it's more difficult, and they fear the challenge, and see no reason to put their 1000$ plus machine on the line. This is the same reason why millions of people pay ridiculous fees and put up with endless advertising to use AOL as their service provider. I know a guy who got cable, but his wife made him pay an extra 10 dollars a month to keep their AOL email etc. open because she's convinced that just going on the internet would somehow be too complicated. If our computers came with Mandrake on them, the vast majority of surfers and emailers would never know the difference, and the more advanced users would primarily know the difference because of the greater number of options that would come from learning the linux commands.

[madcompnerd]

I was reading an article earlier about how M$ was planning to include a totally revised FS in XP. However, they couldn't make deadlines on the FS so they just did something to NTFS and included it.
This reminded me of something. M$ is one company developing an entire operating system:
kernel
Desktop class GUI
Multimedia software(I realize someone else does Winmedia)
The whole system of things in generals, like dll's, registry instead of text files, that kind of thing
filesystem
Driver signing(a crazy idea M$ came up with)
-Hardware compatibility
MSDN


Now I get why the thing is so damned buggy! It's one company developing almost everything! This is a huge task to undertake. With linux it's all broken up. Even the desktop is broken up into parts, X and then the environment. Then the kernel is seperate, all packages are seperate, and then another company throws together a bunch of packages and calls it a distribution!

Plus, it's open source. This to me is like scientific discovery. One programmer figures something out and uses it. Then another builds on it! Einstein couldn't have made the atom bomb without other scientists figuring out things about atomic structure, radiation, and elements. M$ has no shoulders to stand on, so it's trying to peer at Linux's things on it's tip toes in a crowd of distro's who are standing on the shoulders of other developers!

But Windows has advantages. Virtually 100% hardware compatibility for one. Go into best buy and find something that isn't compatible with the Windows 2000 kernel.

Linux also has the security advantage of an ever-changing kernel. Who knows what kernel each system is running. Windows has what, 20 kernels? I know this isn't a huge security advantage, but with all kinds of other packages it is ever-changing too. The rapid development cycle may make security holes, but it closes them too. Leaving the hacker guessing at which security whole the system has, cause he has a broad range to choose from.

[El_Cu_Guy]

And since they already had much of the market hooked on MSDOS, anything graphical and pretty was welcome to the typical MSDOS user.

History check!!!

MSDOS was never a popular OS. Windows was a bust until 3.0. Windows was not always an OS mind you. That's right, originally it was an application suite for DOS (techically so are all version up to Millenium Edition).

I think a big reason why alot of people blindly choose their products is because of ignorance and misinformation about the alternatives.

Not a very informed comment if you ask me. This statement is based on the assumption that all of them use MS products. Most use products developed by third parties include freeware and shareware.

This article is rather informative, (http://osopinion.com/perl/story/21431.html)

all it really needed was someone to adopt it and proprietize it

Kinda like Sun and BSD huh?

[bwkaz]

I thought Sun took AT&T's System V Unix, not BSD, and turned it into Solaris...

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by Hayl
imho, if Mac hardware was as cheap as PC hardware, Microsoft wouldn't exist as we know it.

imho, Mac OS is far easier (for the non-computer-literate) than any version of Windows.
Indeed! Mac OS is also a lot more inexpensive than Microsoft Windows is. For $200 (the price of the full version of the home edition of Windows XP), you can buy 5 licenses for Mac OS X. I also think Mac OS X is a much better OS in many other respects than Windows is, but I'll not iterate those here. It's just a shame that it costs $1000 for a decent Mac while you can get a brand new Dell for a couple hundred dollars less.

[madcompnerd]

MacOS is nice, as long as you want to be kept out of the loop of how your OS is working.
At least with Windows you still keep quite a bit of control, although it pretty much configures everything for you.
But MacOS is most likely more stable, I won't say faster because there's no fair comparison since there is no x86 MacOS or PPC Windows.
Who knows though, maybe Bill is running Windows compiled for the PPC in his office? Heh, it's a wonder there aren't many true Bill Gates conspiracies. I mean, either the things said about him are good, or they're easily proveable and bad. There's no big Bill conspiracy that isn't a joke.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
MacOS is nice, as long as you want to be kept out of the loop of how your OS is working.
At least with Windows you still keep quite a bit of control, although it pretty much configures everything for you.
I fail to understand how you have any more control over Windows than you do over MacOS. At least MacOS X comes with a terminal, though you can't really do much with it since pretty much all of the applications for MacOS X are designed around the GUI.

[bwkaz]

I wonder if he was talking about OS 9 and below maybe?

[gibhunter]

Originally posted by dungscooperdave
I fail to understand how you have any more control over Windows than you do over MacOS. At least MacOS X comes with a terminal, though you can't really do much with it since pretty much all of the applications for MacOS X are designed around the GUI.

So does WinNT4/5/6. Type cmd into the run menu and you're in what MS calls command prompt. From there you can refresh your IP info or reformat your drive from FAT to NTFS or do allot of things that you could from DOS etc. It's in no way nearly as powerfull as the UNIX command prompt, but it's mostly because of poor documentation rather than design.

You can for example use the Win2k cd to boot right into command prompt bypassing pretty much everything. Used mainly as a last resort to save a dying system, but it works:)

[dungscooperdave]

This is true, but when I said 'terminal' I was referring more to a Unix type shell than the Windows command prompt. I've always found the Windows command prompt to be too primitive to be worth using, however the later versions are a bit better than they used to be.

[madcompnerd]

The Window's command prompt would be fine if you could do everything from it. It's not the prompt that's bad, it's the lack of binaries in the system folder(similar to /bin). Well, I must admit you're right about documentation, M$ dearly needs to have a 'man' command.
Yea, MacOS X is very much different isn't it? Since it's based on Darwin? But I'm sure they still do what they've always been notorious for, trying to keep the user out of the loop. Heh, loops a bad word to use, I couldn't think of a better one.
I have very little experience using MacOS, mostly playing with it in the store wishing I could afford a decent Mac. So yea, I'm certainly no expert, just a consumer. But just one thing about it, can I please have a right mouse button?

[dungscooperdave]

Originally posted by madcompnerd
Well, I must admit you're right about documentation, M$ dearly needs to have a 'man' command.
Actually, MS-DOS used to have a 'help' command I believe, that was pretty similar to the man pages. Actually, one nice feature that it had that I liked a lot about it was that if you simply typed 'help' from the command line, it would bring up a sort of menu and from there you could go view a comprehensive listing of all the system commands for MS-DOS. From there you could select a command and then go view the help page for it. I think you could also do a

help command

But I'm not sure about that. I always used to simply type 'help' and then browse from the main index. Anyway, they should have never done away with that, but they probably saw no reason to keep it in since most Windows users are nothing more than point-and-click drones anyway.

I have very little experience using MacOS, mostly playing with it in the store wishing I could afford a decent Mac.
Yes, I'd probably buy a Mac if they weren't so damn expensive! Every time into my local Apple computer store I think there's more employees in there than there are customers. You have to be overcharging if you can afford to pay that many people all the time.

So yea, I'm certainly no expert, just a consumer. But just one thing about it, can I please have a right mouse button?
Ya, what is with Apple's stubbornly insisting upon all their computer mice only having one mouse button? That is so annoying!

[madcompnerd]

Bash has a help command too, it's really useless for people who have no idea what they're doing, but it's there.
I did forget about the Windows help command, but it also seems a lot less complete.

Windows is an old system, I think a lot of it's bugs are there because so much has been tacked on, along with rushed delivery dates. They need to sit down, and redesign the whole OS from scratch. New file system, kernel, graphical system, desktop environment, terminal, scripting(batch is as old as the hills, and less powerful, although you can write a fun net send script*), and anything else.





*Here's that fun script:
:start
net send computerName annoying message
goto start

You'll um have to kill it manually, and it will almost stop your computer from responding, but they'll have a lot of popups to click ok on! It's quite funny actually....
And of course if you don't want them sending to you disable the service. There's a command too, but I forgot it. I think it's 'net messenger stop' or something like that.
You learn this stuff when you're in a class full of nerds and stuck with Win2k.

[Darksamurai]

I don't know... maybe it's cause Windows is a helluva lot easier to use than Linux.

My XP rig, I load the drivers off the disc... MAYBE hunt down a detonator driver and my Geforce 4 card is operational...

I'm STILL trying to hunt down all the damn xfree86 packages for 4.3.0... I have to download 7 packages (and the site is lagged and I've had two mirrors mess up on me, so it's been slow as hell)... that's out a list with all kinds of arcane stuff I don't understand yet as a Linux newbie. So far this week, I've downloaded probably 50 different packages, compiled my kernel and I'm not sure what any of my upgrades have really done...

Also, I went to load UT2003... in Windows, it was all loaded up and life was good... in Linux, it says I have to update my GTK+ and my Nvidia driver (which then they recommended updating GLIB and PANGO)... I grabbed a recent NVIDIA driver, but because of the X86 thing, it blew my screensavers and where-as Tuxracer was slow as a crippled slug, at least it ran before... so I have no 3d anymore really...

I'm sure after I get everything learned, I'll wonder why the heck anyone uses anything other than Linux... but for now, Windows plays my games, has support for newer hardware without having to pray for supporting drivers and it does most of what I need it to.

I like Linux for the fact I'm a former network admin who got REAL sick of Win 98 crashing on me all the time (using Windows 98 at home, it was a rock... it folded under business use). If I ever started my own business (the thought has crossed my mind more than once), I'd set up operations on Linux to reduce initial start-up costs. Also, Linux allows for better resource management and security options in my opinion. Admittingly, "poledit" in Windows does a helluva lot to secure what can and can't be used on a terminal, I still like the option to skip installing these things off the get-go...

In summary: Windows=easier, Linux=configurable.

[AlexPlank]

Originally posted by dungscooperdave
Indeed! Mac OS is also a lot more inexpensive than Microsoft Windows is. For $200 (the price of the full version of the home edition of Windows XP), you can buy 5 licenses for Mac OS X. I also think Mac OS X is a much better OS in many other respects than Windows is, but I'll not iterate those here. It's just a shame that it costs $1000 for a decent Mac while you can get a brand new Dell for a couple hundred dollars less.

in addition Apple gives away OSX.2 to teachers who are allowed to share it with as many people as they like. THe OSX kernel is freebsd based and open source.
And it is even cheaper to build your own computer.

[madcompnerd]

It's cheapest if you can find a place that sells as "bundles" or "kits". Or if you look for a long long time online to get the best price for each component, IMHO it's worth a hundred dollars to not have to search and buy from 5 different places and have it come ion at 5 different times, and then have 5 places to send damaged parts to......

[dungscooperdave]

Definitely. :cool:

[madcompnerd]

Oh yea, and Duron's aren't cheap! You pay for them in the fact that they're outdated when you buy one. Who came up with the idea of ripping all the cache off a processor and saying it's "affordable"?

[bwkaz]

Intel, with the early Celerons, actually. IIRC, the Durons were out after Celerons.

[madcompnerd]

Early celerons were the same way, yes. But the newer celerons are a little better than the durons.

[bwkaz]

True, of course. :)