No apologies for Microsoft Windows
Summary: Recently I've had some discussion with colleagues about Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux in comparison to each other. Generally, I've found that most people agree that Mac OS X is more stable than Windows, and those that are familiar with Linux feel that it too is more stable than Windows.
Recently I've had some discussion with colleagues about Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux in comparison to each other. Generally, I've found that most people agree that Mac OS X is more stable than Windows, and those that are familiar with Linux feel that it too is more stable than Windows. But after that being said, they come back with an apology for Microsoft stating that they (Microsoft) have to get Windows to run on fragmented hardware, whereas Apple standardizes the hardware and can therefore provide a more stable operating system for it, because there aren't nearly as many variations in hardware configurations.
I agree that Apple definitely has an advantage because of the consistent and standardized hardware platform to run on. Windows does have an enormous amount of Intel hardware that it must run on, so the argument I commonly hear is that Microsoft can't possibly run consistently for each separate hardware scenario, and that this causes instability issues.
While this may be partially true that Windows needs to run on a wide variety of hardware, I often ask how Linux can effectively run on the same hardware set as Windows, yet run consistently better than Windows. The main reason in my opinion is the enormous amount of community effort that goes into the Linux kernel and the GNU/Linux operating system as a whole, giving it the ability to quickly and efficiently adapt to the ever-changing hardware. Microsoft with its limited amount of employees that contribute to its own kernel, can't possibly keep up as everything is kept behind closed doors. While keeping its software proprietary will help Microsoft retain its grip on how Windows is distributed and ensure cash flow inbound, it ultimately hurts the Windows consumer with the limited amount of community resources that Microsoft has to put towards it. The amount of community support for the Linux kernel is virtually unlimited, however even Linus himself has made comments in the past about the amount of work to keep everything in line with the current amount of contributors.
There are many other debates on this subject, but it's interesting to hear the different takes on why people feel the way they do about what operating systems they have used. Personally, I don't feel any need to apologize for Microsoft. Microsoft has capitalized significantly over the decades due to its model of marketing software for generic Intel hardware. But in today's world, things are changing and the variety of hardware is far greater than it was 20 years ago, not to mention the rate of change as well.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
As a point of data, or at least anecdote, Macs in our office crash as often as Windows or slightly more; that's still rarely but we've never traced a Mac crash to a hardware fault whereas I'm hard put to think of a blue screen more recent than the beta of Vista that wasn't hardware or a graphics driver (and cured by replacing or removing the culprit). I no longer keep the list of STOP errors that was my constant companion under XP within reach. Did you break your conversations out by version of Windows?
M
2. Acer laptop, originally came with Windows 7 Ultimate, same experience, clean device manager, no issue, upgraded from Windows Vista Ultimate, since upgrading it, I have never reloaded Windows 7 on it once, its been going for two years strong, even ran the pre-release version of Windows 7 along with the beta and RC on it.
3. HP Workstation, this came with Vista Business 64 bit, upgraded it to Windows 7 Professional 64 bit, same case, it upgraded flawlessly, all the hardware detected out the box, the only thing I did after I upgraded was install Windows Live Essentials using the full off line installer.
I have tried the latest Ubuntu 11.04 which is considered the most user friendly of all Linux distros on all 3 systems. Because of where I live, I don't have a reliable Internet connection, so I had to download the .ISO at my brothers house and installed it when I got home. Well, I didn't get Unity although all 3 systems have powerful enough discrete graphics card, Windows 7 out of the box I had Aero Glass, I couldn't play any MP3's, I was playing MP3's out of the box on Windows 7, I was bombarded with updates the minute I logged it, Windows Update dos do this. I connected my iPod Touch synced up my playlist, my iPod is just some generic device on Ubuntu.
I tried doing an offline upgrade of 11.04 from 10.10, wasn't possible. Windows 7, I just inserted the Windows 7 DVD, click Install Now, click Upgrade. Finding this Ubuntu is a nightmare, I inserted the disc, nothing came up in Ubuntu 10.10, some persons said I should check the software center, still didn't find anything. Its obvious if this is suppose to be easiest distribution of Linux, its more like a nightmare.
You say Mac OS X is more stable than Windows? Well check out what people are saying about the latest Lion release, from ComputerWorld: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218612/Most_Mac_OS_X_Lion_upgrades_going_well_however_...?taxonomyId=123&pageNumber=1
Seriously, hating Microsoft, just because its Microsoft is not a good excuse. Its this type of bias why the OS has remained at 0.76% for the past 20 years.
http://www.pclinuxos.com/?page_id=180
Alternatively a search on Google which will often take you directly to the answer e.g. a search for "update ubuntu 10.10 to 11.04" will lead you to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/NattyUpgrades which explains very clearly what you have to do.
The problem is that people are so used to not having easy help or explanations in Windows that they don't even think of looking for it in Ubuntu or other Linux distros. In my experience, over all Ubuntu is easier to use than Windows its just that people have already got used to coping with the difficulties of Windows and refuse to get through a small learning curve to pick up Linux.
'Seriously, hating Microsoft, just because its Microsoft is not a good excuse. Its this type of bias why the OS has remained at 0.76% for the past 20 years.'
I don't understand that!
@apexwm
Nice article but what what was the point? I see nothing that we didn't already know by now... Sorry but that is plain truth.
@Andre Da Costa
Start using Linux before inputting lies like that. Do some research and please do read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux before saying that Windows do more out-of-the-box. Of course it's doing more but did you know that most Linux distros come in 700MB flavors when Windows 7 32bit is 16GB, the 64bit flavor being 20GB?? My Ubuntu 10.04.2 LTS is now 3GB and it's doing a lot more than Windows could ever dream of.
Installing/unselecting components:
The difference is that when you install Windows you can't really choose what Windows service you don't want, you have to install them all and that's it. You then can disable some but it will always be present on the harddisk drive and using a select software using those services will make Windows crash. With Linux you can choose what you want to install since it does not come with 1 million services and obsolete software built-in. Let me expose some facts taken directly from that link I posted before, and that everyone will agree:
"...Linux distributions can not lawfully include MP3 or MPEG-4 file decoders in a minority of countries, as it would violate the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The system does not prevent a user from installing these decoders, however the user assumes all liability for installing said pieces of software.[40] In particular with the MP3 file format, many companies claim patents relevant to the format..."
"...As Microsoft has licensed decoders for a number of patented audio and video coding methods, Windows is able to play a number of patented formats by default. Nevertheless, Microsoft's methods of bundling software were deemed illegal in the case United States v. Microsoft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft"
Of course Windows is doing more out-of-the-box but using crappy codecs for multimedia, codecs that we latter replace with better ones and we then use VLC to play every multimedia format on the planet. With Linux we do the same: install proprietary codecs then use VLC for multimedia playback. Nothing changes there it's basically the same.
In desktop area, Linux is not very present because people fear changes like kids having unreasonable fear looking under their beds for monsters. Did it happen to you that you couldn't delete a file on Windows cause it's supposedly already in use when it's not?? or the same for a file that does not exist but you actually see it but just can't delete it? Or having previous Windows installation files that you cannot delete since their write protected and you don't have proper rights to delete it? Sometimes even booting in Safe mode does nothing more. The only way to delete these files using Windows is by formatting the drive then reinstalling a fresh copy of Windows. Wow too simple isn't it? But when you have a 2TB hdd to clear before installing Windows again (just because you can't delete old Windows installation files) is not that simple and not everyone has another 2TB drive that can host all the files you have to backup before doing a format, just to reinstall WIndows again and recopy those data back onto the drive. Did that far too many times to be bored by that by now. For those times, using Linux is the only way to simply delete them, which is something I have to do like once a week. Yes I use thousands of software so it more than frequently happens.
Fragmentation:
In Linux you will never have to defragment it since it won't fragment at all and if it does, Linux is not affected at all performance wise. And we all know that Windows is fragment way too much when installing/deleteing many games/softwares like I'm doing. Also after only a few weeks of use, Windows is becoming so slow that you see a real difference performance wise when reinstalling a fresh copy of Windows. That don't and will never happen with Linux.
Programming:
In Windows you can't modify Microsoft proprietary files since everything is encrypted to not let anyone see the actual code. You can always use third party software but again you won't be able to modify anything you just have to trust anyone without even be able to see what thoses programs have under their belly. In Linux you just rewrite the files you want to, doing so makes it easy to customize Linux yourself.
Everyday use:
Want to modify partitions in Windows, even modify a Linux or MacOS partition?? You have to install proprietary software which you have to buy first (or be illegal and download it via torrent). Want to use something else than that crappy Internet Explorer or Microsoft Office that don't support other file formats than it's own made ones? In Windows you're pretty much busted or you have to open your wallet again and again (remember MS Office cost hundreds of dollars and it cannot read other file formats). Linux can do all that by default.
Stability:
What you really think Windows is that stable as to put your hand in fire? I don't think so. I've been using Windows since version 3.1, and I've seen countless crashes of all sorts and the same applies for Windows 7. Of course it's more stable than ever but far from being perfect. Just go look for yourself in the folder:
"C:\Users\YourUserName\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive"
and you'll see lotta entries which means Windows DID crash but since you have no experience at all you were not aware of it.
Games:
Oh games, Windows will play them all, Linux won't since most are DirectX coded which Microsoft don't want to share it's coding to the GNU community. That is no secret: paid software will kill advancement, like a paid antivirus is far less potent that free antivirus which are updated hourly by millions of people and not just a few dozens employee of a select firm can do by themselves. But games using OpenGL does in fact run far better on Linux than it does in Windows since OpenGL is far better implemented on Linux.
Specific/scientific usability:
Nasa don't use Windows in their rockets or in the robots currently exploring Mars. You have to guess that they just are not allowed to modify Windows for their needs so the just use a homemade Linux distro so that only things necessary for missions are installed and in use. Why would they want widgets or unneccessary hardware/software/services when they can have none of these crappy things that slow down computing? Also less than 1% supercomputers in the world are running on Windows when more than 91% of supercomputers uses Linux. That speaks for itself.
Microsoft won't ever give us a liveCD to get repairs/tests done so forget that. If you just can't install Windows, either cause you don't have a floppy/optical drive in your computer or cause their is an hardware failure, then you just can't repair your computer. Linux offers a variety of LiveCD/USBs to get the job done, even tho the cpu, ram or hdd gets hardware failure. No need to install just insert CD/DVD/USB then run it. That's it you then do whatever you have to before booting your normal OS if you happen to have repaired the thing. Windows can't boot?? Oh well just reinstall it. Linux can't boot? LiveCD/DVD/USB, repair, then boot back in your installed OS, being Windows or Linux.
Bottom line:
Oh well apart from games, Windows could dream of being that much out-of-the-box as Linux is. Think it will be much more feature-full than Linux when it will be 40GB or more worth of third party apps. But when you do know that Linux do more with far less (remember my 3GB ubuntu), you don't want to use Windows anymore. Oh yes if you're the guy that needs to rip DVDs and put it on the web as torrents, of course you need WIndows since Linux doesn't allow you to break copyrights/encryption of protected content (anyways some people still can do it but it's their problems if they get caugh). Also Microsoft knows everything your doing on your computer... does that scare you? ^^
That's it, tired of laying lines for you when you're not worth it. Start using Linux for a few years before saying that Windows is far better. You'll see that apart games, it is much more capable of doing what you want it to do. Of course if you're fearing changes or the terminal you won't get very far in Linux. In Windows if you can't do it, chances are that you can't do it in the command prompt as well. In Linux if you can't do it, then you can do it with the terminal, sometimes using "sudo" before the actual commands will do magic.
I'll stick to these lines which I strongly agree:
"although Linux administrators are usually paid somewhat higher salaries than Windows administrators, a competent Linux administrator can take care of more computers than the latter."
Peace
"Is the hardware properly inserted?" Or stupid things like that. Linux documentation is maintained by the community so you'll get an answer real quick and even can ask a human to help you, which in Windows you are pretty much on your own. Of course you can ask at tomshardware on any other tech site you know but most of the time even they cannot help you since most of them just want to get fun out of you.
I didn't know that distro. Been using Ubuntu since 8.04 until 10.04LTS, since I don't like 11.04 at all. But I see no point to use a Windows-like Linux when I want it to be way more different than Windows crappy-ware. I'll still download it though to install it on my friend's computer if they wanna try Linux for the first time. They'll tell me if it's better than Ubuntu for a first time linux user, but I will keep my current dual-boot ubuntu/Windows installment on every computer I own (got 11 at home ^^) Thanks for that distro though ^^
> I have never read so much hypocrisy in my life. Seriously, if you are
> gonna be biased, at least have some credibility.
LOL. I don't think @apexwm is a real person: he doesn't give a name, job (if any) title etc. In fact, I suspect it's an "articficial intelligence" program with a bunch of boilerplate paragraphs. Not sure about....
@Nova Thunder via Facebook
> Microsoft won't ever give us a liveCD to get repairs/tests done so forget that.
Personally I have no problems using a Live CD, but you can boot to a Windows Recovery Console, or use (official or unofficial) PE
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143529-make-pe3-program-to-create-portable-windows-7-pe/
Most of the conversations I've had were with Windows 7, but some XP mixed in as well. To be honest, we've seen a new era of issues with Windows 7 that were not in XP, so in the long run the Windows 7 upgrade so far has not been a very good return on investment by the time extra labor and software costs have been added in. The Windows issues are not always hard crashes (blue screens), but other bugs and problems that affect the users' ability to get their work done. A lot of resources are allocated at fixing bugs and installing patches, as well as combating malware.
Andre Da Costa:
Thanks for the feedback. First, you must compare apples to apples. The Windows 7 upgrade and Ubuntu 11.04 are two different upgrades. Why not download the media for 11.04, boot to it, and upgrade that way? The issues I commonly see from those using Windows are that users expect everything to work just like Windows, and just give up, without reading or trying to understand how to do things. Instead, I urge them to read the documentation or ask in one of the many Linux forums available.
Also, doing a Windows 7 upgrade is NOT as easy as just clicking a few buttons. You did not mention that there is no in place upgrade from XP to 7, only Vista to 7 is supported. Also, what about the fact that you have to comb the manufacturer's website for your PC to download and install individual device drivers that may be missing after the 7 install is finished. Ubuntu? All open source drivers are installed automatically just like most other Linux distributions, and closed source drivers can be installed with a click or command.
I base all of my writings on everyday and real world experiences with Windows, Linux, and sometimes Mac OS X. I also base them on years of experience of using Windows and Linux extensively side by side, and from learning them both inside and out. After I took the time to learn GNU/Linux, I was glad that I did because I found out what I had been missing: freedom of my computer to use it how I want, and also not having to waste personal time maintaining it, not to mention the huge array of software available for everyday tasks and even a huge amount of educational software. The best part about the software is it is not Shareware in any way, so there's no nagging or donations, it's just software that works. I think that there is a lack of communication and education about what GNU/Linux is, to the general public. Sure, it isn't for everybody, but it is not difficult to use contrary to rumors that still float around. Personally I choose Fedora, and I frequently point people to the Fedora website where there's an easy to follow Installation Guide:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Installation_Guide/index.html
In fact, I've found that documentation for Fedora is very well done, allowing casual PC users to install it with ease.
- The experience described by Andre Da Costa, while obviously biased and poorly executed, is a good illustration of why I think Ubuntu 11.04 is an unfortunate mistake. Canonical may work out the bugs, and Unity may turn out to be a huge success and a great advancement in Linux desktop user interfaces. But as it stands in the 11.04 release it has a lot of trouble with a lot of graphic system which one would think should work very easily with it, and for that and a lot of other reasons it can be a real pain, and make a very negative impression on new users. Ubuntu has a reputation in the general public as "THE Linux", and when they run into this kind of thing, it is very bad.
- A very large number of people, including myself and I believe also apexwm, don't hate Microsoft just because they are Microsoft. We hate them because of what they have done, and what they continue to do.
jw