# Linux vs. Windows



## MrEMann

I'm trying to determine what I should get on the next computer I build.

What do you guys think about each of these operating systems?

I'm looking at either Fedora or Ubuntu for linux and Windows 7.


----------



## Shane

It depends on what your using your system for,If its Gaming then you will want to stick with windows. (7 Home premium X64) 

If its just general and non gaming stuff then Linux would be a good choice.


----------



## fastdude

Nevakonaza said:


> It depends on what your using your system for,If its Gaming then you will want to stick with windows. (7 Home premium X64)
> 
> If its just general and non gaming stuff then Linux would be a good choice.



Yep, agreed. Linux is awesome for programming, plus its free, but for mainstream programs you'll want windows


----------



## tech savvy

just get windows,only good thing about Linux is thats its free and its free for a reason.


----------



## salvage-this

tech savvy said:


> just get windows,only good thing about Linux is thats its free and its free for a reason.



Because it is an open source operating system and that is how they are designed?


----------



## tech savvy

no because if they charged for it no1 would have it,lol. and are you asking a question or making a statment?


----------



## salvage-this

I would have it.  Gaming is the only thing that I use windows for.


----------



## dave10

I think you should go for Windows,
I am also using it on my machine.


----------



## MrEMann

Thank you for the input. I am definitely leaning toward Windows right now. If anyone has more input, though, I am glad to hear it.


----------



## Fatback

“A computer is like air conditioning – it becomes useless when you open Windows”

Windows is a must have though, for anything besides internet, or programming. Get W7, then dual boot with Linux.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I dual boot XP and Linux Mint on my laptop. Linux is by far faster than Windows, and far less bloaty.


----------



## tlarkin

tech savvy said:


> no because if they charged for it no1 would have it,lol. and are you asking a question or making a statment?



just some facts...

1)  They do charge for Linux, it is called Enterprise Linux.  Redhat enterprise, SuSe, and some other Unix-bsed OSes do in fact cost money.

2)  The free, "open source," market is a 500 million dollar a year market, so it is in fact making money.



> Windows is a must have though, for anything besides internet, or programming. Get W7, then dual boot with Linux.



There are plenty of people who do not use Windows.   My buddy's wife uses their Ubuntu laptop and she has zero computer knowledge.  Granted she uses it for basic things but she has no problems at all using Linux.   It is not a 'must-have,' unless maybe you are a gamer.

Also, Linux is not only good for programming.  My HTPC at home runs Linux and it works great.  You know why I use Linux?  Simply because I don't want to spend $150 on an OS to play movies on my TV, that is dumb.

It all comes down to personal preferences and needs/wants.  If you want to game, Windows is the best OS choice for gaming currently.


----------



## Quiltface

I will second linux mint as far as linux goes.

What are you going to use this computer for?  Like they said gaming will sway you towards windows instantly.  Just doing Internet and office type stuff  linux would work just as good as windows.  Do you plan on using it for work and installing work applications or company VPN software.  Make sure that it is supported by the OS you choose.  Linux has an alternative for a lot of things but sometimes an alternative isnt an option.  So keep those things in mind.   If they were both free I would do windows.


----------



## User0one

I just installed XP on a Linux Laptop for a Lady who thought Linux would work because about all she did with a Computer was  Voice Chat with her Mom, and do email.

She said she spent a lot of time first trying to get her Wireless Headset to work. A MS XBox 360 wireless mic and earphone. That Failed linux just would not recognize it. 

Then she couldn't find a application that would allow her to use Voice Chat services on MSN Messenger, she could type messages, but not voice Chat.

So it can be something pretty simple for Windows to do that Linux can't cope with, or you the user can't figure out how to configure.


----------



## Quiltface

I would of put money on the xbox headset not working with linux, im sure there is headsets out there that work fine.  Same thing with msn, probably any other chat program would work.


----------



## tlarkin

User0one said:


> I just installed XP on a Linux Laptop for a Lady who thought Linux would work because about all she did with a Computer was  Voice Chat with her Mom, and do email.
> 
> She said she spent a lot of time first trying to get her Wireless Headset to work. A MS XBox 360 wireless mic and earphone. That Failed linux just would not recognize it.
> 
> Then she couldn't find a application that would allow her to use Voice Chat services on MSN Messenger, she could type messages, but not voice Chat.
> 
> So it can be something pretty simple for Windows to do that Linux can't cope with, or you the user can't figure out how to configure.



sounds like she cannot use google

http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/xboxdrv/

http://kmess.org/

http://pidgin.im/

I will give you Linux is harder to learn because it is so different than Windows and Windows owned the first market share of personal computers for the most part.   So, most people are acclimated to the monolithic design that is Windows.

Also for someone who doesn't really care about computers that much any techno-speak can be like speaking Latin to some people.  However, I am sure she could have gotten everything to work right if she researched, RTFM, and tried and had a little patience.

Though, Windows is easier, and there are many reasons it is and that is a discussion I really don't want to go down because it involves OS design from the kernel on down.


----------



## Dropkickmurphys

As someone else said, if you want the best of both worlds, dual boot. If you choose windows in the end its not the end of the world cause Linux is free. 

I have considered moving to Linux for my main OS and keeping Windows for gaming only (though I do get Windows for free - it's awesome being a student - so that also factors in my decision).


----------



## iAteBillyMays

I haven't been using Linux for too long, but it doesn't seem to be all that great compared to Windows.  The only benefit to having Linux is that it's free, software is free, and there are only like two viruses programmed for it.  I happened to get a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate and getting free software is never a problem for me as it is, so Linux doesn't really do me all that good.


----------



## tech savvy

^as i said, only benefit of linux is thats its free.


----------



## Quiltface

and more secure... and more flexible...


----------



## tlarkin

tech savvy said:


> ^as i said, only benefit of linux is thats its free.



Obviously you do not know what POSIX is


----------



## cones

I use ubuntu as my main os.  I only have windows for itunes.  I can do everything on linux that i need to do.  Also if you can't find a program for linux you can use wine if the program is supported by wine.


----------



## StrangleHold

Just try some form of Linux and see what you think, not just a few days and give up. Its a learning curve. If you think its not your thing, get Windows. Still dual boot, Linux might grow on you.


----------



## salvage-this

cones said:


> I use ubuntu as my main os.  I only have windows for itunes.  I can do everything on linux that i need to do.  Also if you can't find a program for linux you can use wine if the program is supported by wine.



Just curious,  what do you need from iTunes that you do not have in Rhythmbox?


----------



## cones

salvage-this said:


> Just curious,  what do you need from iTunes that you do not have in Rhythmbox?



I jailbreak my iphone so backing up apps, music, restoring, and updating.  I do use rythmbox in ubuntu though.


----------



## MrEMann

Dual boot sounds like the best bet. I can get Windows 7 for free, so price isn't the issue. I do a lot of gaming and stuff, so I guess I'll keep Windows and try out Linux.

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## Harolds

You can dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu, so try them both.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I used to be a full-time Linux user (first Ubuntu, then moved on to Fedora), and I can say that "the only good thing about Linux is it's free" is blatantly false. One thing I do have to give Windows credit for is its handling of dual monitors, though - the reason I don't use Linux as my main OS any more is because the dual monitor setup on my laptop was (well, is) so glitchy... apparently this had a lot to do with the fact that they were both different resolution.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

hackapelite said:


> I used to be a full-time Linux user (first Ubuntu, then moved on to Fedora), and I can say that "the only good thing about Linux is it's free" is blatantly false. One thing I do have to give Windows credit for is its handling of dual monitors, though - the reason I don't use Linux as my main OS any more is because the dual monitor setup on my laptop was (well, is) so glitchy... apparently this had a lot to do with the fact that they were both different resolution.


There are these mythical and totally wonderful things called _drivers_...Though yes I have to admit extended desktop did not work in Ubuntu 10.04 on my elderly 8-9 year old Lifebook E66xx series laptop, despite days of research and forum posting. But everything else worked perfectly (except for a couple minor things that old computers with Linux suffer from), and I used it more than Windows 7 on that laptop, in fact there were months when I didn't boot into Windows.
I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 on my desktop right now, works like a charm, and in fact this message was typed using FF in it. There are many, literally thousands, of free apps for Linux, so it was easy finding alternatives to software I used in Windows, and many of my Windows programs had Linux counterparts, easing the switch. Granted, I still use Windows for gaming, it's unavoidable in this age of Microsoft dominance, but Linux features some great games as well that I'm totally addicted to and most of which can't be found for Windows.
Internet integration is amazing, featuring a chat program that can access several different chat accounts on several different services simultaneously, and mail and my social life are neatly integrated as well.
Everything is neatly placed and organized, there isn't a bloated system tray sitting to the left of the clock, and I have experienced productivity increases due to the switchable workspaces.
Not to mention the last recorded time a computer running Linux got a virus was in the mid 90s. Linux isn't virus or hack-proof, imo no OS is, but it's extremely rare for a hacker to go out and try to hack one of the rare Linux machines floating around the globe, unless it's part of a huge corporation, as ironically demonstrated with a couple M$ servers earlier this year. So you'd be saving anitvirus fees and performance degradation while using Linux.
Bottom line is, it's a matter of personal preference, and you have nothing to lose in trying Linux, and you can burn a CD and boot and run everything from that during testing with most distributions. Linux isn't free because it's a bad OS, it's free because the authors wanted something different in the world; they wanted something that could be easily modified and they recognized the potential of millions of programmers from all over the world developing and improving the code to create an OS that could compete with the big two. When you pop a Linux CD into your drive, you are taking a part in this world-wide effort to provide something different.

As for distribution suggestions, I highly recommend the latest version of Ubuntu, it's the easiest to get started with. Just remember to approach the mighty penguin in noob mode, ditching all pre-learned knowledge on how Windows works and embracing the OS.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> There are these mythical and totally wonderful things called drivers...


...not sure what you're after with this. Of course I was using drivers.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Maybe yours was an exception.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

lucasbytegenius said:


> Maybe yours was an exception.


What do you mean?


----------



## salvage-this

there is a possibility that the drivers that you used with your system did not work well with your components.


----------



## dave1701

I like windows.


----------



## P.C.Man

MrEMann said:


> I'm trying to determine what I should get on the next computer I build.
> 
> What do you guys think about each of these operating systems?
> 
> I'm looking at either Fedora or Ubuntu for linux and Windows 7.



If your machine has at least 4 GBs of RAM and the rest of your hardware is compatible (and can handle the load), I would personally recommend windows 7 home premium 64-bit.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

P.C.Man said:


> If your machine has at least 4 GBs of RAM and the rest of your hardware is compatible (and can handle the load), I would personally recommend windows 7 home premium 64-bit.



Let's get something straight: You don't need 4 GB to run Windows 7 x64. Look at my sig. 20% (and most of the time less than that) used. Now, if you want to take advantage of a total RAM amount of past 4 GB, then yes get the 64 bit version.
Just to clarify


----------



## tlarkin

lucasbytegenius said:


> Let's get something straight: You don't need 4 GB to run Windows 7 x64. Look at my sig. 20% (and most of the time less than that) used. Now, if you want to take advantage of a total RAM amount of past 4 GB, then yes get the 64 bit version.
> Just to clarify



Yeah but the minute you want to do anything you need at least 4 gigs of RAM.  If I load photoshop or play Starcraft II my 4 gigs total jumps to about 3.6gigs in use.  Plus Windows 7 will cache things out to RAM using it, so really it does benefit you.  

A lot of computers you buy come standard with 4 gigs of RAM these days.


----------



## Jamien

My suggestion is you should go for Windows OS. In present all most every computer program will support for windows operating system. Linux is an open source but you can’t do more work with it.


----------



## Hsv_Man

Jamien said:


> My suggestion is you should go for Windows OS. In present all most every computer program will support for windows operating system. Linux is an open source but you can’t do more work with it.



Exactly the programs released today are made for windows as 95% + computer users are using a windows operating system. So with windows you just can't go wrong. As mentioned earlier if you dual boot you can choose which OS you want to use at startup so thats always a good way to go.


----------



## vnsmith

Jamien said:


> My suggestion is you should go for Windows OS. In present all most every computer program will support for windows operating system. Linux is an open source but you can’t do more work with it.



and you are right about it. 



> Exactly the programs released today are made for windows as 95% + computer users are using a windows operating system. So with windows you just can't go wrong. As mentioned earlier if you dual boot you can choose which OS you want to use at startup so thats always a good way to go.



and so are you..

Windows is the wide use and commonly preferred by every one because of the compatibility it presents with other programs. you won't find a hard time looking for program support..


----------



## tlarkin

vnsmith said:


> Windows is the wide use and commonly preferred by every one because of the compatibility it presents with other programs. you won't find a hard time looking for program support..



You think that is the reason Windows is widely used?  I got a newsflash for you.  Every single OS out there:  Linux, Unix, OS X, all have compatible applications and all have applications that do everything a Windows box can do, perhaps aside from video games.

The only real reason Windows got so big, is their business model, not because they are a superior product.  At one point in time MS was buying over 100 companies per a year.  They just out did every company in business, made more money, had a better marketing plan, and they got lucky because it all happened during the tech boom.

If you would hit the reset button on it all now, and reset all marketing and knowledge on all computers and start to sell them, I do not think Microsoft would come out as good as they have it now.


----------



## Zabuza_Haku

Love Linux, using Linux Mint 10 now, switched from Fedora 13,before that was using opensuse 11.2 64bit

Windows is good for compatibility with programs and games, but it requires way to much maintenance, security,defraging etc,gets real tedious. For me atleast.

Prefer linux as well due to the fact linux operating systems provide MUCH more options and choices, I switch from Gnome,KDE and LXDE every few or so months lol.Not to mention I change distros a lot for the fun of it. Returning to Fedora 14 soon,just got me the DVD.

Linux DVDs that come with openoffice,vlc etc are great especially for me since I prefer offline installation and keeping a back up of all my programs,compared to a windows box.
I find linux a life saver as well for my older desktops and laptops,was able to revive my old Pentium 2 thanks to linux and my old Pentium m with puppy linux, more options = more freedom

my 2 cents.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Zabuza_Haku said:


> Love Linux, using Linux Mint 10 now, switched from Fedora 13,before that was using opensuse 11.2 64bit



LM10 sucks so far. I stuck it on my E6500 which ran LM9 like a dream, but it ran LM10 like crap. I think I may just wait a few months for the next edition to come out before I upgrade.


----------



## phyz

Get windows xp. Only half decent OS ive used.


----------



## voyagerfan99

phyz said:


> Get windows xp. Only half decent OS ive used.



XP is slow and outdated.


----------



## fastdude

voyagerfan99 said:


> XP is slow and outdated.



+1

Why get an old OS with up to DX9 support that isn't as quick or readily available as Win7?

Also, MS either have, or are going to soon, end support for XP SP3


----------



## tlarkin

fastdude said:


> +1
> 
> Why get an old OS with up to DX9 support that isn't as quick or readily available as Win7?
> 
> Also, MS either have, or are going to soon, end support for XP SP3



I agree that Windows 7 is superior to XP technology wise, but still uses the same old model that NT was built on.  However, if you notice certain changes happen in 7 that make me want to guess MS is starting to adapt their OS into a more Unix-like OS.  Only time will tell.


----------



## salvage-this

What makes you think that Windows is using more of a Unix approach?  Wouldn't that require a rebuild of the OS from the ground up?


----------



## tlarkin

salvage-this said:


> What makes you think that Windows is using more of a Unix approach?  Wouldn't that require a rebuild of the OS from the ground up?



Notice how all home folders are now in C:\Users where as before they were embedded in the Documents and Settings folder.  That means each user can have parent POSIX permissions, and this was probably implemented due to having to run certain applications as administrator.

The NT kernel is loosely based on Unix.  Unix is the grand father of all Operating Systems.


----------



## salvage-this

Yep I can see that now.  Thanks for the explanation


----------



## voyagerfan99

fastdude said:


> Also, MS either have, or are going to soon, end support for XP SP3



Not for another three years my friend.



> On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes, will be terminated.


----------



## tlarkin

voyagerfan99 said:


> Not for another three years my friend.



This is honestly a bad thing.  Every other OS in the world stops supporting things when they get several years old.  The fact that it is still supported means developers have to code compatibility thus creating bloated code, and leaving open tons of security leaks.

If MS made their OS a bit cheaper, like $100 and dropped support for the oldest OS say every 3 years, people would probably buy the new one.   They'd also get rid of the feature limiting versions.


----------



## Quiltface

tlarkin said:


> This is honestly a bad thing.  Every other OS in the world stops supporting things when they get several years old.  The fact that it is still supported means developers have to code compatibility thus creating bloated code, and leaving open tons of security leaks.
> 
> If MS made their OS a bit cheaper, like $100 and dropped support for the oldest OS say every 3 years, people would probably buy the new one.   They'd also get rid of the feature limiting versions.



Yes I hate how windows is so damn expensive... you can get oem 7 for $100.  But i would like to see 1 version of the OS (minus servers) at a flat rate of $100 or less.  No more home premium... professional ultimate nonsense.


----------



## sunnysid3up

Fatback said:


> “A computer is like air conditioning – it becomes useless when you open Windows”
> 
> Windows is a must have though, for anything besides internet, or programming. Get W7, then dual boot with Linux.



yup dual booting is a good idea if you cant decide. I am dual booting W7 ultimate and lunix right now and i barely use lunix. its just there if you need it.... 

anyways you just install windows then put the ubuntu CD and click install. make sure you dual boot and not delete you windows 7 

but if you only want one OS i would use windows 7 just cuz when i was using lunix half the programs i needed were not compatible with lunix


----------



## TrainTrackHack

Linux.


----------



## wolfeking

The dual boot is the best Idea, however, you better have the restore disk to your windows OS, as the Linux/Ubuntu install will screw the restore partition on the hard drive.


----------



## voyagerfan99

wolfeking said:


> The dual boot is the best Idea, however, you better have the restore disk to your windows OS, as the Linux/Ubuntu install will screw the restore partition on the hard drive.



If you're tech savvy you don't need restore disks or partitions


----------



## jht27

Any downsides to a dual boot windows/linux OS? besides holding on to installation CDs?


----------



## salvage-this

Having two partitions with all of your data.  

Rebooting whenever you want to use a program from the other OS

Neither of those are not that bad for me.  It would feel weird not to have a dual boot now.


----------



## v3nes

randyotto said:


> windows are user friendly and almost all software and games support Windows



http://www.winehq.org/



randyotto said:


> Linux is mainly used for programing , so it depends on the usage what type of OS one want in his system



There are many different distributions. For servers, for programmers, for security annalists,  even ubuntu is used by overclockers


----------



## Quiltface

Wine doesn't work amazing all of the time.  It is an option though.

and the statement about linux is for programmers is just wrong.

I think when you start talking like linux vs windows vs apple (and eventually) vs chrome

you have to realize what you want and need... hard to say which one is better or worse.
I love linux and windows...haven't used a mac since 1997-98 so i cant comment.  but you shouldn't really compare them, it is like what is better a truck or a car...well depends on what you need.


----------



## sunnysid3up

Quiltface said:


> Wine doesn't work amazing all of the time.  It is an option though.
> 
> and the statement about linux is for programmers is just wrong.
> 
> I think when you start talking like linux vs windows vs apple (and eventually) vs chrome
> 
> you have to realize what you want and need... hard to say which one is better or worse.
> I love linux and windows...haven't used a mac since 1997-98 so i cant comment.  but you shouldn't really compare them, it is like what is better a truck or a car...well depends on what you need.



amen :good:


----------



## tlarkin

Linux is something you really just don't pick up and learn out of the box.  It is an Operating System, and there are a lot of complex things going on in an OS.  Most computer users grew up or first learned using Windows, which means they have the mindset that an OS should be like Windows.   I think I first installed Linux in 1998 and it was slackware version 2.x.  I took it off not long after because I didn't understand how it worked.  I remember going to the command line and seeing BASH error out and me thinking, yeah I am going to bash this keyboard if it doesn't work.

Every OS is complicated when you get down to the underlying technologies.  There is so much going on.  The thing that makes Linux stand out is how modular it is by design.   You have your Kernel, then your shell, then your choice of desktop environment and then you choice of packages.   It doesn't have the bloat or tons of needed legacy code Windows has.   

Linux can out of the box run Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and so forth.  So perhaps it may be more ideal for a software developer to use such an OS, however, if you are developing for Windows you will need to work on a Windows box.   Windows can run those libraries and command interpreters as well.   In fact, many times I will launch the python interpreter instead of the calculator to do math.  This is just because I am acclimated to using a computer that way.

To say that any OS is more compatible is also a moot point.   Linux, OS X, and Windows all have a plethora of apps that do the same thing.  The only difference is, sometimes certain apps are platform dependent.   Say if you want to use Shake and Final Cut, you gotta do so on a Mac.   Otherwise, there are similar apps for both Windows and Linux that do similar things.


----------



## wolfeking

jht27 said:


> Any downsides to a dual boot windows/linux OS? besides holding on to installation CDs?


With a large enough HDD, I see no problems at all. It will take up a lot of space from your windows partition (up to 20 GB using Wubi or as much as you install with the boot to disk install option.)
Just remember that when you save something under one OS, you will not be able to run it on the other OS (due to the HDD write style. Ubuntu doesn't like the NTFS language of the windows partition). Its a good idea to run the windows install first to avoid having issues with the boot manager.


----------



## lubolat

Are you building it for yourself or someone else? If its for another person, please go with Win7! Believe me, I installed an Ubuntu for a neighbor after they used XP and, man, lucky I live next door, because I must have been over at least 3-4 times to show how this works, etc. Eventually I put XP back. 
But if it is for yourself, do a dual boot, install W7 first and then Ubuntu, maybe. Gives you more flexibility, variety and, if you get a virus on the Windows, you can access your files, pictures, etc., thru Ubuntu. And if you decide to uninstall the Linux OS, you'll have to fix your MBR, because Grub seems to hate it


----------



## lucasbytegenius

lubolat said:


> Are you building it for yourself or someone else? If its for another person, please go with Win7! Believe me, I installed an Ubuntu for a neighbor after they used XP and, man, lucky I live next door, because I must have been over at least 3-4 times to show how this works, etc. Eventually I put XP back.
> But if it is for yourself, do a dual boot, install W7 first and then Ubuntu, maybe. Gives you more flexibility, variety and, if you get a virus on the Windows, you can access your files, pictures, etc., thru Ubuntu. And if you decide to uninstall the Linux OS, you'll have to fix your MBR, because Grub seems to hate it



GRUB does not hate your MBR, number one. Being a boot manager as it is, it has to install some code in the Master Boot Record. That's what boot managers do. Number two, I installed Ubuntu 10.10 on a 64 year old grandma's computer, and the only questions I got asked were how to put solitaire on it and how to browse files. After that, she got along quite well with it, hasn't had a question for me since, and in fact, when I offered to install Windows 7, she told me she wanted to keep Ubuntu. And she is one of those people who have trouble with computers in general. Your friend must have been stuck in the Windows mindset, and didn't want to learn. Many Linux distributions aren't hard to get used to, especially Ubuntu.


----------



## Quiltface

I like doudou linux.


----------



## Quiltface

harhar


----------



## gamblingman

tlarkin said:


> Linux can out of the box run *Apache*, PHP, *Perl*, Python, Ruby, and so forth.



The bold are why I sometimes use linux instead of windows. I also got the fiancee interested in installing either ubuntu or linux mint on her machine. She isn't sure which one she wants at the moment. Though I'm trying to steer her toward ubuntu because it will be easier to learn. She tried mac's a few times and hated it.

I'd suggest most people try linux first, if they really don't like it, then switch to windows. Everyone already knows what windows can do, what it cant, its strengths and weaknesses so maybe try something different, eh?


----------



## Quiltface

gamblingman said:


> The bold are why I sometimes use linux instead of windows. I also got the fiancee interested in installing either ubuntu or linux mint on her machine. She isn't sure which one she wants at the moment. Though I'm trying to steer her toward ubuntu because it will be easier to learn. She tried mac's a few times and hated it.
> 
> I'd suggest most people try linux first, if they really don't like it, then switch to windows. Everyone already knows what windows can do, what it cant, its strengths and weaknesses so maybe try something different, eh?



I have linux mint installed on my old laptop that my girl friend uses, i think it is easy enough its basically the same thing as ubuntu.  Looks different, i use that over Ubuntu10.10 because of the performance.  I use the mint LXDE version.


----------



## LittleBarnFuh

Get windows, it is definitely more compatible with things, and easier to find drivers in. for example my dad praised Linux and got it on his computer, but had to switch to windows because his internet wouldn't work for Linux. Also it is easier to find better software for windows. for example Microsoft office is better than Open Office despite what others say, also if something goes wrong with your computer and you have Linux, good luck, the little help you do find will be understandable by programmers only. I had Linux once and thought it was pretty cool, until two days later when I realized all I could do was look at it. It will definitely be worth the money to get Windows 7. Just get a good virus protector, like Avast, it works amazing and is free. Choose Wisely


----------



## Quiltface

What ISP did he have that it wouldn't work with linux?  How long ago was this?


----------



## tlarkin

Quiltface said:


> What ISP did he have that it wouldn't work with linux?  How long ago was this?



Considering networking is standardized between all OSes, what he is claiming is just not true.  Either the ISP has some sort of client software (that configures the network, or PPPoE) that only runs on Windows, which isn't needed because like I already stated; Networking is standardized.

Now take in the fact that the Internet runs off of Unix and Linux....I find that even harder to believe.


----------



## Quiltface

tlarkin said:


> Considering networking is standardized between all OSes, what he is claiming is just not true.  Either the ISP has some sort of client software (that configures the network, or PPPoE) that only runs on Windows, which isn't needed because like I already stated; Networking is standardized.
> 
> Now take in the fact that the Internet runs off of Unix and Linux....I find that even harder to believe.



yeah that's why i asked... i haven't seen the need of a pppoe client in a while, the modems all have that feature built in.


----------



## zombine210

i really tried to like linux, but it just plain sucks.

to whoever said supporting OSes for a years is a bad thing, i disagree. whenever i searched for help in linux, i had to make sure the fix applied to the current version i was using or it might not work.
in windows, you know everything is the same and what it can and cannot do. A fix that was found back in 2005 for XP will still work today! how cool is that? you can't do taht in linux! any version.

also, you have to make sure you have the exact same hardware as the guy giving you advice, or things might not work the way you expect!

and most of the help is given in commands. i mean, get with the times people! we have sweet GUIs that can do almost anything. linux is still trying to re-live it's geek days.

edit: also, freenas never liked my nics, it ran them at 3MB/sec even after hours of troubleshooting and command line configs. in windows i get at least 7MB/sec transfers to my file server out of the box.


----------



## Quiltface

don't you bad mouth the cli.


----------



## tlarkin

zombine210 said:


> i really tried to like linux, but it just plain sucks.
> 
> to whoever said supporting OSes for a years is a bad thing, i disagree. whenever i searched for help in linux, i had to make sure the fix applied to the current version i was using or it might not work.
> in windows, you know everything is the same and what it can and cannot do. A fix that was found back in 2005 for XP will still work today! how cool is that? you can't do taht in linux! any version.
> 
> also, you have to make sure you have the exact same hardware as the guy giving you advice, or things might not work the way you expect!
> 
> and most of the help is given in commands. i mean, get with the times people! we have sweet GUIs that can do almost anything. linux is still trying to re-live it's geek days.
> 
> edit: also, freenas never liked my nics, it ran them at 3MB/sec even after hours of troubleshooting and command line configs. in windows i get at least 7MB/sec transfers to my file server out of the box.



well, you have some good points.  Obviously Linux isn't for everyone and Linux is developed by a community for nothing.  Linus Torvald, the creator of the Linux kernel makes no money off of it.  He gave it away for free.   Almost all the problems you are describing are probably because of driver support.  Companies do not release their source code to drivers so the open source community has to reverse engineer them.  This of course will have it's flaws, since you maybe missing on some features of the hardware you have no idea how to code for.

If you buy supported hardware, that has actual Linux drivers, that really isn't much of a problem.  Plus newest builds of Linux, like the new Ubuntu 10.10 come pretty much compatible out of the box.

The command line is essential, for many reasons, however in most cases whatever you do in the command line there is almost always a GUI option for it.  There are, however, exceptions.   

As for supporting legacy software, that is where your security holes and bloat comes from.   Why is it, I can build a PC and load any OS on it besides Windows and that OS will boot faster, launch applications faster, and give overall performance faster?  Those modern OSes cut the fat out of their code, and don't have tons of legacy support for your 7 year old software that was built off an older API which has known security holes or compatibility problems.   There is ample reason to run updated software and not support software that is a decade old.


----------



## MrWain

i agree with "fatback" go windows dual boot linux or just blast it in a vmware or someting ^_^


----------



## voyagerfan99

MrWain said:


> i agree with "fatback" go windows dual boot linux or just blast it in a vmware or someting ^_^



Personally I find dual booting the best option. Doesn't restrict you when you have the option of two different OS'.


----------



## MrWain

voyagerfan99 said:


> Personally I find dual booting the best option. Doesn't restrict you when you have the option of two different OS'.



suppose you have a point the only reason i mention vmware etc is cause im to lazy when i decide i need linux so just use that xD overall would be better to dual boot the os =]


----------

