No, I don't agree with that assessment. I think that Windows is the result of a great deal of compromise, and it's still in control of the market because MS has gone out've its way to make things work for almost everybody.

And it keeps getting better with each release, not worse. Each new version of Windows (with, I'll be the first to say, the awful exception of ME) has been superior to the last, from 3.1 to XP. 64 will be yet another serious improvement, and I'm eagerly waiting to get my hands on it... and am glad that MS is taking their time in getting it polished up and as close as bug-free as they can before general release.

Yes, Linux is more efficient in many ways, and is far more secure. No arguments there.

But if that's all you're after... shoot, buy an Acorn Micro, with the entire OS built into a PROM. You can't get much faster or harder to hack an OS than that

I did not always think this way about Windows. For years, I was a hard-core Mac user, and I've had considerable experience with UNIX and other OS's. But Windows 2000 convinced me that MS had finally begun to learn that customers needed stability and flexibility, and XP has pushed this further and further.

Linux remains very rough for anybody who's not a geek with free time and no other hobbies. Driver support may or may not exist for your camera/scanner/video card/motherboard/whatever. Programs frequently look like freeware... because they are.

And, thus far, there isn't any real equivalent to the Visual Development Suite, which has allowed programmers to deliver programs that adhere to common interface standards (which, if you deal with as much new software per year/month as I do, is a big deal- I don't want to learn custom commands every time I sit down with a new piece of software, thanks) and run well with Windows.

I was hoping that the Linux community would eventually realize that the primary problem with Linux is not that it's bad... or that nobody will change OS's if it makes sense... but that it's not the same as Windows, in terms of its interface, and that the constant fragmentation of the Linux world is a problem, not a good response to users who all want different things from their OS.

The interface alone is a huge obstacle for the 99% of computer users, who have huge problems learning an interface, period. I know how that goes... I work with non-geeks all the time, and have watched the pain and suffering most Mac users feel when they use a Wintel box

Lindows was a good stab at this problem, but it's not good enough to really compete yet. If Linux distros ever get to the point where I can switch from a Linux machine to Windows and use the same command keys, find everything in the same places, and run the same software... I'll use Linux on a daily basis. Otherwise, I'll just use it, like I do at home, for specialized things (I have a tiny-kernal machine that I use as a file / music / video server, and a few other things).

I'm not sure that the Linux community will ever get their act together, and unite behind a common front. None of the commercial distro companies (Red Hat, et al) have been able to establish enough market dominance to push things strongly in the right direction here- which, in my opinion, would be to make Linux as cross-compatible with Windows as possible. That's the only way that most people are going to switch, and MS has been very, very smart about the whole thing.

So, for now, I'm sticking with what works. It's not that I'm a bigot about it- I think that Linux and BeOS and other would-be-contenders are getting better, and I really would rather have a free OS that is more secure... IF it actually served my needs better, and didn't confuse the heck out've visitors to my apartment when they just want to check their email

Oh! this thread is just going to cause trouble...
All I'm going to say on this subject is:

from VeriTest...
Tests Show Windows Server Environment More Reliable and Easier to Manage
VeriTest (April 2005): "Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3.0: IT Professionals Running a Production Environment." This Microsoft-sponsored study found that the Windows Server environment was more reliable and easier to manage, achieving higher levels of end-user service.

And yes I have and do use both operating systems.

Hehe, you're probably right, BP I was trying to be balanced about this- my opinion is based on over 20 years of using computers of various flavors at this point, so it's not like Linux is some Amazing New Thing (the Amiga got that award, when I was like... 11).

Anyhow, everybody should be nice and not flame, k? Both OS's have their strengths and weaknesses... and, sadly, since they aren't cross-compatible, we'll never really be able to judge them purely by their merits.

---

Oh! this thread is just going to cause trouble...
All I'm going to say on this subject is:

from VeriTest...
Tests Show Windows Server Environment More Reliable and Easier to Manage
VeriTest (April 2005): "Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3.0: IT Professionals Running a Production Environment." This Microsoft-sponsored study found that the Windows Server environment was more reliable and easier to manage, achieving higher levels of end-user service.

And yes I have and do use both operating systems.

---

Can't say I actually have an opinion on this having never tried Linux yet, but quoting a Microsoft sponsored study into the merits of Windows vs. Linux is not exactly the best way to back your case up.

Ah but the thing is I'm not making a case just quoting what I read...

Did I give an opinion? No I didn't... as usual people read in what they want...

it all boils down to this.

Linux, yes its stable, yes its efficient, yes its secure. Who the hell uses it for anything useful outside of business/technical? Hardly anybody because there are vurtually no apps written for it, and quite often no drivers. Every home and school PC that people actually use is Windows, and lets be fair, most of the time XP is good enough for the vast majority of home users.

I run Linux on my own rig. I also have a 2K Server with XP pro clients. what do you think most of our home PC usage is? email and eBay for Mrs Taw, MSN for the Tawette, games for mini-Taw. and XP is fine for them because its easy and tells them what to do, and for me too because i have so little to do to keep it all running ok.

I had to look afetr our work network for years. Linux order receipts and developement machines, Sun box running Unix, 2K/NT4 servers, but everyone used XP/2K for the bulk of their work. Ran Unix emulators on Windows PCs. everyone was happy.

horses for courses. great, have a thumping Linux system thats rock solid stable - and then what? what can you do with it? can your mum/wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter easily use it to talk to her friends or go shopping online? probably not. can they play the Sims on it? No. and if the issues security, well, anyone who can put in the effort with a Linux system could spend a lot less effort making a Windows PC secure.

so, inferior? from a purely technical point of view, but Windows is good enough for most uses and its what people are familiar with. And its a lot easier to manage. especially server side. no not kidding, i'd rather manage a Windows system nayday than a Linux, because its so much easier. You can *wing* it with Windows, ie you dont actually have to know what the answer is, you can usually figure it out. Linux requires a lot more knowledge, which is fine until the people with the knowledge aren't around. And with the general high-standards and low-prices of pcs and components these dyas, Windows is a lot more stable than it ever used to be and the *bloatware* issue isn't anything like as important.

and Microsoft paying for me to go on a sailing holiday the other week has nothing to do with anything, ok?

Edited by - Tawakalna (Reloaded) on 9/14/2005 4:59:46 AM

Edited by - Tawakalna (Reloaded) on 9/14/2005 5:31:30 AM

I hate Microsoft, and I agree, game devolipers don't have much support for Mac or Linux. However, I can't stand Mac, and in my opinion, Windows is easier to use.

hey, no microsoft bashing. didn't you read the memo?

*thinks back fondly of ME*

<thinks Indy must've been on the heavy drugs if he/she/it has fond memories of ME that don't involve setting the installer CD on fire>

Argh...Extremely intelligent and has a sense of humor too...Good combination.

i keep telling my sister to let me replace her ME piece of crud when she complains about it i use xp pro with few problems (that better hardware couldn't fix) personally i'm getting sick of fixing that paper weight of her's.
i haven't used linux but i have used 2003 server in a classroom had very little trouble (until we set up active directory anyway ) would i use it personally, no. it was way too slow for me.

ME <shudders> fond memories? well the overheating laptop was probably good for warming your sandwiches. any other uses for ME? the cd made a good coaster. what a piece of tat.

Weeeelllll...

Time for my other two cents.

It all really boils down to this:

Macs are suited for those who want a clean interface, and for those who like a powerful graphics development tool. Mac are the absolute BEST when it comes to graphics.

Linux is great for a hardcore geek or programmer. I'm not as 1337 as i should be to use linux, but im learning. It takes a lot, but it starts to remind me of the DOS days. ahh, the memories.

Windows is for everyone else who is too stupid to use linux, too uncreative to use a mac properly, or wants to play all the latest 'blockbuster' games, which are hard to get running on linux. (I got Quake and Unreal running quite well.) I would also like to point out that most viruses and trojans are designed for windows users.

-:-
You wanna revolution?