Windows Xp Vs. Linux Which one do you prefer?

[TiTaN_pi8 0]

HA!!!!!

 

Obviously you know nothing about computers, guy. Windows always has been the WORST since day one. Notice how someone else always has the better technologies, and then you see them show up in Windows...and in a very bad conversion in most cases. Man, just face it, you're just jealous that we actually KNOW how to use our computers.

 

,I,,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with that. I don't think Windows is the worst. If so, then why is everybody using it?

 

It is very user friendly, I don't see the average user using Debian... There are probably a lot of distributions that are more user friendly than Debian, but personnaly I don't think they are as user friendly as Windows.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I think windows is both bad and good. Froma technical standpoint, it has some serious issues. From a useability standpoint, its a hell of a lot better than linux currently is. This is primarily due to vendor support of devices for windows, but its still true for the end user. I think that windows has a more intuitive, well designed, and well placed section for configuration. That isn't to say its perfect, just that linux, so far, needs some major help when it comes to user friendly GUI config stuff. As for the comment about "knowing" how to use a computer..Why should you have to? When you build a tool, like a computer, you should build it to be used by humans. Having to learn to use a tool, especially if the learning curve is steep, is a design flaw in the tool. Granted, this is not to say that windows isn't horribly flawed, but most people are used to it, and its still easier to learn than a lot of linux.

[microtech 0]

I personally like Windows XP, and I get a lot of complimentery softwares from my dad who is associated with Microsoft. It's pretty sweet. I've tried Linux before and don't like it to much but it beats Apple's operating system. What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer Xp, I've tried a live CD of SuSE Linux 9.2, it was very beautiful, but it wasn't simple to take control over it. I think because it was a Live Evaluation CD.

However, Linux has inspired me a period, but I got problems with pc and harddisk

[the empty calorie 0]

Why should people require a license before driving a car?Why should people learn anything?In those kind of situations, that is what a Mac was meant for.But if people aren't wanting to learn about just using their computer, that's fine. But if you are going to do that, why don't you use something that isn't so problematic? Not to mention something from a company who actually cares about its customers?

[qwijibow 0]

Many people say windows is more user friendly.I would dis-agree.Im sure windows is great when its working,but users have to maintain updates, install virus scanners, adware programs, spyware removers, defragment the hard disk, scan for virii.and re-install when the system just grinds to a hault.The number of people ive spoken to who say they need a new computer, that was brand new only 18 months ago is insane.They dont understand that the hardware is fine, its just the Operating system, and a re-install will fix it.how many poepl have wasted £400 on new computers because of virii, spyware, and adware.I have 2 computers, an AMD64 3400+ and an Athlon XP 1800+.I keep the newer one up to date, cutting edge gentoo, always the latest software.But the AthlonXP is still running Slackware 9.Zero system maintenance, no firewalls no virus scanners, no spyware or adware porgrams, no defragmenting.. nothing.i dont do any maintenance on slackware 9. i installed it years ago, and its still running perfectly, just as it did when it was first installed.now THATS ! user friendly.

[Grafitti 0]

Possibly you have a point about OSes other than windows running better. however for the vast majority of people, Windows still is more user-friendly. compare it to a car that needs regular tune-ups, but runs fine most of the time.a little of everything, part off-road, part clunker, part racer. does no job perfectly, but all average. that's what most people are looking for.

[qwijibow 0]

lol, okay. thats one way of looking at it.anouther car analogy, would be that the GNU/Linux car takes a little longer to learn how to drive, but requires little ot no maintenance.The windows car is easyer to learn to drive, but will need the user to learn mechanics to keep it running smoothly.Im not arguing one way or anouther, im just making the point that the trm "user-friendly" needs to be better defined.GNU/Linux has no auto-tun feature on cd's.this means the user would need to manually start any installation of cd-based software.but it also means better security for those of us who dont think twice before putting un-trused cd's into our machines.I think the porblem with linux's user friendlyness, is too much choice.new users will get confused, to they want XFree or Xorg ? GNOME or KDE.. or both?Konqueror, or Netscape, or Mozilla, or Firefox or Links....but then linux is all about freedom, so i wpuldnt want that to change.Yeah, linux is harder to learn, but thats what seperates linux users from the rest of the nerds :Plol.GNU/Linux spent most of its life as a hacker toy / server / nerd status symbol.its only very recently had attempts made to attract those who are happy sticking wih windows.

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

OK Let me put my 2 cents in. First off LINUX no matter distro you use in not really made for the common, everyday, end user. It doesn't matter if it comes with a GUI, which in my opinion is a travasty that should never have happened to Linux. Linux is for people who want to have their own small, reletive term, home based server or small business server. Second Windows WAS designed from its birth, though depending on who you side with was stolen from apple, to be a "user friendly" interface to allow anyone who could figure out how to use a mouse to use a computer.Now as for stability, any unix/linux based system will win here hands down. Although you can definetly say that XP is a major leap forward for MicroSoft both in stability and security, which some might agree isn't saying much. If MS wants to really get a good OS outta the box they really need to have their programing groups talking to each other more often. The whole problem with the MS OS development team from what I understand, is that they split the development into like 4 groups and then don't have them really communicate untill just before launch.

[Grafitti 0]

I think the porblem with linux's user friendlyness, is too much choice.new users will get confused, to they want XFree or Xorg ? GNOME or KDE.. or both?
Konqueror, or Netscape, or Mozilla, or Firefox or Links....

but then linux is all about freedom, so i wpuldnt want that to change.

Yeah, linux is harder to learn, but thats what seperates linux users from the rest of the nerds

In that case i would classify myself with the nerds, at least for now. i'm trying to work on learning it, so i ordered this Ubuntu distro. I wouldn't say i'm lost, as it uses a GUI similar to windows, but it's definitely unfamiliar territory. But what's the opinion on that version? As you said, there are too many versions to choose from.

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

I agree that Linux/unix/GNu based OS's are a much better product then anything that M$ can/will/is capbable of putting out. The biggest, and most unstated difference between the 2 though is this. People flat out don't like the way M$ and Big Daddy Gates do buisness so they write code to screw with his crap while they don't have much of a problem with Linux so they leave it alone for the most part. Most of the virus's out there are written for MS windows (all of the various flavors).

[qwijibow 0]

Most of the virus's out there are written for MS windows (all of the various flavors).

I think this is because is so much harder writing a virus for linux. (or any UNIX for that matter)

In windows, all you need to do ir be able to run "arbituary code".
You can do this by finding a buffer overflow exploi in a running network service that is not firewalled, OR you can simply trick a user into clicking a file by senting it as an email, or trick them into downloading somthing, or rick them into visiting a web page that exploits an IE security hole.

One you get the abilty to run code on that windows machine, you can potentially own it.
you coould patch the kernel, install root kits, anything.

In UNIX, the odds are againsed you.
First, lets assume you manage to trick a user into running a program (arbituary code)
your virus is limited to the access rights of the running user, The virus cannot make system wide changes, it can not even read most config files, it only has write access to the /tmp and $HOME directorys.

In other words, the virus can delete your homework (unless you made it read-only)
and thats about it. its locked in to the user tohat nmade the mistake, cleaning the virus is as simple as deleting it. The ONLY way that virus could run itself at bootup is by adding itself to that users autorun settings.. removing the virus is very very very easy.

so, what if the virus finds its way into a server through an exploit in a server daemon.

Daemons run with the privilage "nobody" they dont even have a home directory.

Once a virus runs, it cando very very very little, it needs a second exploit called a privilage esculation exploit to do anything.

now thats the bare minimum securety...

a self respecting sysadmin woul have the server running in a chroot jail.
the virus needs to break out of this.

the sysadmin may also be using SELinux (securety enhanced) or Hardened Linux.

which means the virus would need to cause a buffer overflow, AND a privilage esculation exploit, AND break out of the chroot jil, without doing somthing that SELinux considers unusual behavior for that program.

SELinux would the server daemon and all its running porcesses as soon as it attempted to escape the chroot jail.

Plus, beause linux is harder to learn, and thereforeits user know a little about linux, they know not to give root access to un-trused software.

[madcrow 0]

In general Linux is a much better OS. For certain tasks (like gaming) Windoze still has an advantage though. In all fairness, XP isn't half bad, it's just nowhere near as good as a good Linux distro, especially when you consider how much more expensive barebones Windoze with no programs is compared to a nice Linux distro.

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

my personal preferances aside... logan your logic is completely wrong. They don't make viruses for windows because they dislike windows...they make it for windows because windows is SUCCESSFUL. Why would a virus maker bother ****ing with linux...not even ppl use it. They make viruses to mess peoples systems so they make it for the system with the most users... more user and less comp literate users means more damage per virus released... simple conditionals.As I said, I'm not really defending microsoft or windows, I know which I prefer, thats not the point. But bash M$ and windows for what it actually does wrong, dont diss it for random things it cant control.

[qwijibow 0]

Why would a virus maker bother ****ing with linux

Write a sucessful windows virus, and become one of the hundreds of thousands already in the wild, just anouther brick in the wall.

Or write a sucessfull linux virus, and get remembered forever as the person who did it first to linux...

i know which one i would consider as having the greatest geek points.

Its not that nobody can be bothered to write a linux virus,
its just that no-one has managed it yet.

Peopl are trying, there are proof of concept linux virii out there, but they just dont work unless they are given passwords, and they dont have the means to sprad.

[nightfox1405241487 0]

I personally like Windows XP, and I get a lot of complimentery softwares from my dad who is associated with Microsoft. It's pretty sweet. I've tried Linux before and don't like it to much but it beats Apple's operating system. What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lucky you...get all the free over-priced software you want while the rest of us Win user have to sign away our souls to Microsoft... j/k

 

I personally like Linux over Windows because the work I do is web stuff and I am building an Intranet at my school and the server is running Linux (Fedora Core 3 to be exact). Linux is great because it is open source. You can take a desktop based Linux disto (Fedora Core is more of a SERVER distro, not very friendly for desktop use) like SuSE (SuSE is good, I have server editions so they are more advanced) and mod it up.

 

Xandros is great for if you want to run most Windows programs and if you want a stable and secure Linux Desktop.

 

[N]F