What is Digg?67 Comments
- cody50, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Your more knowledgeable windows users will be able to keep a clean and fast system by not downloading stupid crap and just in general, using the Internet responsibly.
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32"1. Windows can never run stably, it will always require a reformat after a few months to run properly.
False. This may seem like its true if you constantly add and remove programs, use your PC most of the day and / or use lots of large files constantly. But actually, if you just install windows, your necessary applications, then leave it, it survives adequately for much much longer."
who doesn't contantly add and delete things from their hard drive? (we do it daily) you don't sound too convincing there.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"I still don't know who will install linux on hardware that's "Designed for Windows"."
People who want to give linux a shot as oppose to windows but don't want to shell out on new hardware just so it'll work? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It's got nothing to do with adding and removing programs. My windows machine ran stable as a rock since 2003 when I built it. No spyware, no viruses, no firewalls, wide-open pipe to Comcast Cable internet (no router). No problem.
It's got to do with idiot users running brittneyspearsNaked.exe on their machines as an admin account and then blaming the OS. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Better yet, here's the article:
Top 5 Linux and Windows myths
Author - Michael
I've come across a lot of things being spread around recently about both linux and windows, and why one is better than the other. You're always going to have people on both sides, but regardless, there are things I've heard in particular for both sides of the argument that aren't true.
1. Windows can never run stably, it will always require a reformat after a few months to run properly.
False. This may seem like its true if you constantly add and remove programs, use your PC most of the day and / or use lots of large files constantly. But actually, if you just install windows, your necessary applications, then leave it, it survives adequately for much much longer.
2. There are linux distributions around which will always detect all your hardware and get you up and running without doing a thing.
Again, false. While some linux distributions try and in most cases succeed in doing a good job in this (Suse and Ubuntu for example), nothing can be guaranteed, and especially with non standard hardware you may well need to do some configuration. Most things will work, but not all of these will work straight out of the box.
3. Windows is more user friendly than Linux.
False. Surprised? Well, chances are you're just used to windows. Studies have shown that Linux is in fact MORE user friendly than windows, just people aren't used to it!
4. Linux can never overtake windows because Microsoft have such a great influence in the market they can pull out of near any mistake.
Well, this has an element of truth in it, Microsoft have made many mistakes and have pulled away. Windows ME for example is considered by many, including myself, to be the most flawed attempt to put an OS onto a cd. But they pulled through pretty much unharmed. However, the assumption they can pull through anything and people will continue to ignore linux is pushing it. Linux is getting more user friendly and supportive of hardware all the time, no-one can deny that. And although Microsoft have the influence to push them through a few mistakes, if a long chain continues it could well cause permenant damage - it would just take far longer because of their influence.
5. There is no evidence that Linux is coming any closer to overtaking windows.
I'm not claiming that Linux is level with Windows, or about to become level, but there are definately signs of its use spreading. Especially in less developed countries where paying extra for an operating system can be avoided, this is a cost cut that nearly everyone will take. And due to the ever increasing number of computers in poorer countries, Linux is gaining momentum.
I hope that has cleared up one or two things that may have been unclear with people. Some may seem obvious, but I have seen the above statements suggested in various forms more than once recently, and while elements of some are true, they just can't be accepted as gospel in their entirety.
EDIT: As a result of one of the comments, I do feel I need to clarify what is meant by user friendly. True, some things are FAR easier in windows, I'm not denying that (such as wireless networking - as correctly pointed out this is much easier than in XP SP2.) However, while this is often true it is not always the case, and in my experience distributions such as Ubuntu and SUSE are leading the way in starting to provide plug and play support to more and more devices. For example, when I installed Ubuntu, literally everything worked straight away (with the exception of my TVTuner.) However for windows, I had to install seperate drivers for networking, sound, SATA support etc. before it even recognised the existence of these devices. It doesn't hold true for every device no, but I think that its this constant push to support more devices without any drivers that is making linux more and more user friendly on this front, it just needs to extend that support a bit further!
Return to TeraTech-Blogs homepage
13928 - digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://duggmirror.com/linux_unix/Top_5_Linux_and_Windows_myths/
- TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"3. Windows is more user friendly than Linux.
False. Surprised? Well, chances are you're just used to windows. Studies have shown that Linux is in fact MORE user friendly than windows, just people aren't used to it!"
Wow. He really showed me that Linux is more friendly, what all of the studies he cited and everything. Now I can never argue otherwise. In fact, I happen to be privy to some information that will enlighten all who read this as well. Here it goes
6. Pirates are cooler than ninjas.
False! You are probably just more familiar with pirates because there have been more pirate movies and stuff. In fact, there are studies that prove without a doubt that ninjas are way cooler and even more deadly than pirates. You don't need to know who conducted these studies or if I just made them up or not, because they are STUDIES.
*I am a Linux user and I love it, but come on, this 'article' is pathetic and provides zero facts or useful information for anyone. Lame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Adding and deleting small files and suchlike constantly should be ok - but I guess uninstalling and installing large programs constantly just to try them out is what slows it down.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You can't blame Windows when a third party app doesn't uninstall cleanly. Example: on new HP dc series towers, you get QuickBooks Simple Start Edition - a trialware. When you uninstall it, you still get the "register your software" reminder popup at boot time for QB. Why? Because the key is still leftover in HKLM...Run. Is that Windows' fault? No.
When you install/uninstall a whole lot of applications written by a whole lot of companies who are trying as fast as they can to crank these things out to generate profit, you can expect that the developers may have skimped on the uninstaller to meet some manager's deadline.
Use CCLeaner: http://www.ccleaner.com/ Free. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"3. Windows is more user friendly than Linux.
False. Surprised? Well, chances are you're just used to windows. Studies have shown that Linux is in fact MORE user friendly than windows, just people aren't used to it!"
This is true. At first I thought Linux was less user friendly. But then I got used to bashing my head against the wall trying to modify printer drivers to make them work properly, manually adding entries to my xorg.conf file to have my mouse working properly and using xvidtune to add custom modelines to xorg.conf's monitor section and I realized that Linux is actually more user friendly. - tungsai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That article is "definately" true.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7True, but then again it doesn't stop the clogging up through large files - which can be enormous. I use the internet responsibly and don't download any stupid crap but i play around with lots of different programs and the constant installing and uninstalling really mucks it up.
- phraud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I really do not understand this whole Windows vs Linux thing. For one thing, there are different versions of Windows, and different versions of Linux. If your saying Windows is better for playing games, then I am assuming your talking XP Pro or Home, and not Server 2003.
When your talking about being more stable as a server OS, your not even saying which services, and which implementation of which services that your talking about (architecture, release, etc)
Please people, when making an arguement, specify the Linux Distro, the kernel version, the specific Application/Service/whatever that your talking about, and then compare that to a specific version of Windows and its respective Application/Service/etc.
These arguments are so broad that it doesn't even make sense to partake, though ironically, I am. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"In linux if you install a program it's either local or global, and the registry in linux is replaced by conf files which is far easier to edit and figure out new settings."
I'm a linux user, and I gotta ask, you're kidding, right??
Ok, yeah, everything's in /etc. or /usr/etc. or /usr/local/etc. or /opt/kde/config. or ~/.[programname].
And that narrows it down to about 500-600 files.
Linux's conf is good in theory, but I'd give anything for the entire library of open source to share a SQLite database for configuration. - znachtman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I completely agree -- With Linux/Unix dependency problems and lack of a unified package management system, entropy can quickly attack any Linux system.
Off course with production level servers you are often not constantly installing/removing applications. Any production level server, whether it be Linux or Windows, should be reliable. Though, for most things Unix works much better. See LAMP (Linux/Unix, Apache, MySQL, PHP). - xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Very subjective
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3These are not very good "myths" or particularly informative. I don't know many people that feel that you have to reformat and reinstall Windows periodically. Admittedly, I don't use Windows much anymore, but I've never had that opinion.
The "myth" about Linux autorecognizing and autoconfiguring all your hardware is also peculiar. I think that the majority of people have the opposite impression, actually. This is also a little misleading, since while Linux distributions wont automatically recognize and configure ALL of your hardware, they clearly do a much better job than Microsoft's Windows products and support a wider range of hardware. Yet, most people shouldn't care that Windows doesn't support their hardware out of the box as the majority of Windows users are running an OEM version with the drivers for the system hardware pre-installed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ bigtrouble77
I think you need to look at this page and implement these changes via group policy:
http://ephemblog.com/blog/2006/09/19/faster-windows-xp/
And also consider installing the UPH Cleanup Service. - jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I do like the comment that linux more user-friendly, but I don't like the hedge at the end where he equates hardware compatibility with user-friendliness.
And really, when you're talking about Linux's user-friendliness, you're talking about either GNOME or KDE. Both GNOME and KDE have great advantages in user-friendliness over Windows - people just aren't used to same. I'm sure the same can be said about OSX.
My point is that KDE isn't less friendly than windows just because the menus are different or the keyboard shortcuts are different. If you take someone who has never used a computer and teach them how to use KDE FIRST, they would feel crippled trying to use Windows XP. - mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the poster didn't say anything about adding/deleting files, they said programs. When you add/remove programs extremely frequently, you are stuck with the byproducts of those programs. Lazy programmers don't write proper uninstall scripts for their software, leaving lots of things behind in the form of files or registry settings.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Meh....It took a day or two of googling, but I got WoW running perfectly under 64-bit Ubuntu (using 32-bit chroot) while running XGL/compiz. After all my hard work, I logged in and realized I didn't feel like playing it at all anymore. So I canceled my account, walked outside and went hiking. Go figure.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3MySQL is not GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is not MySQL.
Repeat as necessary. - johnthedebs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Myth #6: "You can't play games on Linux"
Besides all the free games Linux has, which are of mixed quality, there are some extremely popular titles such as the Unreal Tournament series (since the first release apparently) that will run _natively_ under Linux. Besides this, you can use Wine to get other popular games such as WoW and "Steam-powered" games to run as well. It isn't perfect, but it's far from not being able to play.
I found the article to be pretty incomplete and poorly written for the most part. - monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nah, Linux is fine.
An OS can only run as good as the hardware it's running on or the settings given to it.
What do you think Google uses? - TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, it doesn't. Ubuntu does not ALWAYS detect ALL of your hardware and get you up and running without doing a thing. In fact, I just built a new computer last week using the Intel 965P chipset on my motherboard. Ubuntu couldn't recognize my dvd drive, or any other IDE drive. Thats because the JMicron IDE controller is not in the Ubuntu kernel ATM.
I think its wierd that he would put that in there. Most people would assume the complete opposite would be the myth. - monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wish World of Warcraft had a linux client.
I know you can get around it by using wine, but I mean... I find wine to be a pain in the ass sometimes. It'd be nice to have something more official. - billyoneal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Face it. Linux is more stable for servers. Windows is what users look for. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but for the most part, they are built to meet very different criteria. Also, I agree with the bad uninstaller theory. The difference is that most open source developers care about not damaging a system, but may companies do not. They want you to always have the software installed. So they do not write good uninstallers. This would also occur on linux is developers really started targeting linux for end users.
As for anything involving win9x, linux is better - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh and hardware that's "Designed for Windows" just means that they've gone through the approval process with Microsoft to ensure that valid functioning drivers are available for it with whatever Windows version it's "designed" for. If you wanna use some Linux distro and you've got drivers for your hardware, rock on.
What's really too bad is that there's not a "Designed for Linux" hardware vetting process. - Jether, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The site is back online - http://www.tt-blogs.com/comment.php?id=52
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hello friend. This is the year 2006. Welcome! A lot has changed since you were frozen 10 years ago, particularly in the world of computing.
- Beanseh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2eh what ive been running my copy of xp x64 now for over a year and i regularly move large files and i regularly install games and then uninstall them when im done and yet its still as nice and zippy and i havent upgraded anything on it people who ***** their pcs up clearly just have no clue (i have no spywear scanner or viurs scanner adn its just fine)
- Sagan1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish "You can't play games on Linux" was a myth. I would change instantly if I wouldn't have to worry about whether a game runs on linux or not when I want to play it.
- phraud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@adiosk8
Please do research before making statements.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ mpancha
What do you think MS's RegClean is for?
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html
Anyway, dealing with artifacts of old programs in the registry only consumes a FRACTION of CPU time. The real problems lie in things like memory management (especially page file usage), hard disk fragmentation, and GUI usage (having all the enhanced appearance bells & whistles enabled). All of which are easily fixed if you know what you're doing, software installs/uninstalls be damned. - chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23. Windows is more user friendly than Linux.
False. Surprised? Well, chances are you're just used to windows. Studies have shown that Linux is in fact MORE user friendly than windows, just people aren't used to it!
And then the next question
4. Linux can never overtake windows because Microsoft have such a great influence in the market they can pull out of near any mistake.
Well, this has an .................... it. Linux is getting more user friendly and supportive of hardware all the time, no-one can deny that.
If linux is more user friendly then why does it need to get more user friendly to overtake windows - johnthedebs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Now, I duel boot Xp and Suse because I'm too lazy to learn nvu and the gimp, so I would have to agree with the answer.
And there are no spelling mistakes in this post. Go figure..."
I think you meant dual-boot. See definitions of "dual" and "duel." - eantoranz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let me put it this way:
MS Window's natural state is "Booting" :-D - lordTalus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Xvamp:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by putting linux on computers "Designed For Windows"...I have a couple of thinkpads that were "DFW's" and they do everything I want them to do with Linux...without too much trouble...inlcuding that 'useless' xgl/compiz stuff...which isn't useless if you consider uberneato stuff useful. - JohnBooty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm a developer and a gamer. That means my desktop PCs run 24/7 and they're busy for much of that time. I also install (and uninstall) lots of software and that includes big software.
My last two desktop Windows installed literally lasted for several years each. I built a Win2K box in 2001 and it was my workhorse until I retired it in 2003.
I built a WinXP box in 2002 and used it as my workhorse from 2003 until 2006. Again, we're talking development tools, games, the works. No problems. Eventually in 2006 I was having a few weird issues and since I upgraded the CPU/motherboard anyway, I decided to wipe it clean and start fresh.
Those are just my personal experiences but in my experience a modern Windows install will last for years if you don't ***** it up with spyware, viruses, and god-knows-what else. It takes a small amount of know-how on the user's part... *very* small.
Before you label me a "Windows fanboy" let me mention that I've recently started spending a lot of time on OSX and generally prefer it to Windows. But I haven't found Windows to be unstable (either in the "bluescreens a lot" sense or "the OS needs to be reinstalled a lot" sense) since the Win9x/MEdays.
Anybody who has those kinds of problems with Windows is either polluting their computer with junkware or has physical hardware problems. Unfortunately, when you buy a computer from a company like Dell or HP, your computer has a lot of junkware on it from the start... so maybe that's why people have problems. (All my Windows computers are homebuilds) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the real reason your system hasn't slowed down is because you haven't installed Systemworks....what a piece of garbage.
- shaolinpunks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i marked it as inaccurate at first read of
"1. Windows can never run stably, it will always require a reformat after a few months to run properly.
False. This may seem like its true if you constantly add and remove programs, use your PC most of the day and / or use lots of large files constantly. But actually, if you just install windows, your necessary applications, then leave it, it survives adequately for much much longer."
but then i reread it and noticed that
"use your PC most of the day"
so it should be dugg up if you don't use your pc at all
keep it in the corner turned off
when you turn it on 8months from now
it'll load solitare just as fast as it did today - Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As far as Windows Xp goes....I reinstall every 6 months to maintain peak speed and get rid of old traces of junk left behind by uninstalled applications in registry. Registry cleaners work sometimes but usually do more harm than good.
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I used to believe the quote in the parent comment, but I'm not so sure anymore. I had to develop highend document scanning stations which only serve one purpose... to scan large legal files. They are not hooked up to the internet and additional applications are rarely installed.
Problem is that everyone of the machines(running winxp) has serious performance and stability issues that often require a reformat after as little as 4 months. These are all shuttle xpc boxes with a gig of ram that has a defrag scheduled every night. Even more problematic is if I have the employees leave the machines on 24-7... stability goes to ***** even if every program is closed at the end of the day.
I have everyone in the main office running linux with some apps in vmware. Every machine has been up for months without a single reboot. Sadly, there's no enterprise level document scanning in linux yet so I'm stuck with the winxp setup on our scanning stations. - Applemacmad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now that is just rubbish - since when is Mac Linux??
They do have their similarities under the hood. The main difference is, Mac is brilliant, Linux is resonably better than Windows - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1WTF are you talking about? Do you have a 500 MB hard drive? Those files don't hurt anything by sitting on your drive as far as application speed goes. That's mostly a problem with page file usage. Set your page file for 1.5x the size of your memory and set both min and max the same size so windows doesn't have to dynamically resize your page file. Better yet, move the page file to a slave hard drive if you have one.
Take a look at this page for actually USEFUL tweaks instead of BS myths and generalizations - http://ephemblog.com/blog/2006/09/19/faster-windows-xp/ - netjd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@xvampirex: QUOTE: " That's called registry hell... It all goes into registry and doesn't clean up after the program is out.
In linux if you install a program it's either local or global, and the registry in linux is replaced by conf files which is far easier to edit and figure out new settings."
Just a question:most registry leftovers are Windows fault? Or is it the application designer that failed to create a complete unistall package?
Also, the registry is a central depository as where conf files, from my admittedly limited experience (as compared to my Windows experience), are spread out in diferent directories. Far easier? That depends on your knowledge of the OS.
Regardless, to change reg or conf entries requires knowledge of each, so I see this as just different approaches to system configuration.
One more note: I have had XP running on my system since Oct 2002 and have yet to 'reformat and reload'. My system has become unstable at times but in no way attributed to Windows (or Microsoft for that matter) but to faulty design of 3rd party applications and adware/spyware. Reformat is for those who are limited in knowledge of how to correct these issues within Windows. Now if we were talking about Win9X,ME, that would be a different story.
No, I am not a Windows 'fanboy' as I do use Linux as well. But my Windows knowledge is what pays my bills. - warsql, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would agree with the parent. I haven't had to re-install windows since Windows'95. My question is, how long can a windows computer stay running? My work computer runs XP and I have to reboot it every few days because is runs out of tcp/ip connections. While this is most likely caused by some program I am using, if I were running linux, I wouldn't have to reboot the entire os, I could just restart some services and avoid closing and re-opening the files I am working on.
- phstpok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"3. Windows is more user friendly than Linux.
False. Surprised? Well, chances are you're just used to windows. Studies have shown that Linux is in fact MORE user friendly than windows, just people aren't used to it!"
May be a bit lax at providing proofs, but
I built my dad (84) his first pc as he "wanted to get into this email thing".
Celeron 433, 256mb, 4.3gb, onboard video & sound. DSE-N (damnsmalllinux-not), firefox, thunderbird & OoO2.0
Half an hour training after hooking up to an isp, and the only question I've had from him since (8 months) is an email asking where he could find a way to panorama shots from his week old digital camera.
Now, I duel boot Xp and Suse because I'm too lazy to learn nvu and the gimp, so I would have to agree with the answer.
And there are no spelling mistakes in this post. Go figure... - GhostRiderTGAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd like to comment that I have just made the switch to Ubuntu and am very please at how easy it is to use. I have been a dedicated Windows user until now and I knew that if I tried something like dual-booting that I would end up just using Windows because of my familiarity so I didn't go that route. I decided to jump in with both feet and run Ubuntu by itself on my laptop. It runs great and though I am having to learn quickly to make things like my Broadcom wireless card work, I am very pleased.
Ubuntu is such a user friendly environment and the community forums out there supporting it are so straight forward that I think even the most novice user could easily adopt this OS. At this rate I really think Linux could take on Microsoft and Apple. Maybe we will see a shift and Microsoft will actually start producing products for Linux like they do for MAC OS? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4XVampireX: I completely understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to people that hadn't heard of linux or at least had no intention of trying it out when they first bought their computer, and as it becomes more and more well known and user friendly more people are switching over who may have known nothing about linux when they first bought their hardware.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is