Windows or Lunux ???????

[doolittle]

Nope I would agree but you have to ask why? If windows is so bad then why is Linux not on everything?

Once Windows XP SP2 came along, the compelling reasons to use linux for general desktop use kind of vanished. Sure use it if you want . For me the ultimate test is which OS is best for my parents and siblings computers (ie which one will I end up fixing the least or get phone calls to set up something etc.). Windows wins that one easily, over OSX and Linux. I can see ChromeOS being ideal for netbooks etc
I like linux myself and OSX too, but would never usually recommend them .

 

[Deleted account 190920001]

Blue Sweeper, The linux kernel is on a lot of things but not the Linux that we are talking about here. This is about PC computing and not a video recorder which is fixed and none customisable. By the way Linux is the OS which is used on the markets most growing phone platform which is Android. Its a Linux platform with a Java VM running on it.
So what your saying Doolittle is that Linux isnt user friendly? FWIW I agree, its still too fiddly and techie to get on with unless you know what your doing.
What I don't understand is if it is such a good and secure platform then why has nobody taken it on-board and given it to the masses? I know companies like Red Hat are on the go but they haven't delivered. Google only seems to be interested in hacked down versions so why? Maybe because it isnt as great as the evandualists would have you believe? Maybe a Desktop OS for the masses is an incredibly difficult thing to do and like it or not Microsoft is the only company so far to be able to fully do it. Again I am deliberately excluding OSX because it is only made to run on a narrow list of expensive hardware. Personally I think one of Linux's failings is also one of its strengths in that it is open source. Because of that there are hundreds of distro's and the whole project is fragmented with no driving direction. What runs on one distro wont on another so in effect they are different operating systems. They may be all under the Linux banner but they aren't compatible with each other. That to the public is the kiss of death as they have no idea what is best or how to choose. Its just too confusing and they cant be bothered so they choose Windows because they know it will work and help is always around if it goes wrong.
Chrome OS I can see getting cancelled as it doesn't have a purpose. Its a browser, no more or less and at the moment anyway people cant and dont want to do their computing in the cloud. You see it all the time, Q so what are you going to be doing. A oh just a bit of surfing. When in reality what they mean is surfing and a bit of photo editing, maybe a bit of video from the holidays oh and of course the odd letter here and there and of course they want to watch a DVD as well. Some of that can be done in the cloud now but not it all and of course internet connectivity is far from always there which is essential for Chrome.
Android though I like a lot and it is its own proper OS. I even have it running on a PC so it works there too. Google hasn't fully taken on board what Android can fully do but they will and it might even kill off Linux as we know it today. Two years from now it might well be should I stick with Windows or go over to Android!

 

[stolzy]

(ie which one will I end up fixing the least or get phone calls to set up something etc.). Windows wins that one easily, over OSX

That's a joke, surely?
I do informal IT support for my small company, family, friends and people in our village who don't have the skills. I've persuaded more than half of them to change to Macs. Those are the ones who never need my help.

AV software seems to be the cause of half of the problems people have with windows and malware/viruses most of the rest. Don't get any of that with MacOS X

 

[doolittle]

That's a joke, surely?
I do informal IT support for my small company, family, friends and people in our village who don't have the skills. I've persuaded more than half of them to change to Macs. Those are the ones who never need my help.

AV software seems to be the cause of half of the problems people have with windows and malware/viruses most of the rest. Don't get any of that with MacOS X

No joke and don't call me Shirley

The problem I have with OSX is lack of drivers (or drivers lacking full functionality) for peripherals and lack of OSX versions of some programs (especially for folks who have already been running windows). Don't get me wrong, it's a great OS, I am using it at the moment. I can see how it would suit many users, just not the people I know.
Malware can be a pain, but with a decent firewall and avast free edition haven't had any problems in a long time.

 

[cookie]

What I don't understand is if it is such a good and secure platform then why has nobody taken it on-board and given it to the masses?

don't MS have excessive leverage with the hardware manufacturers?

 

[stolzy]

No joke and don't call me Shirley

The problem I have with OSX is lack of drivers (or drivers lacking full functionality) for peripherals

Never found it a problem, though it is certainly true that drivers for newer hardware tend to be delivered later for OSX. On the other hand you get spared the driver runaround for the hardware which comes in the box.

and lack of OSX versions of some programs (especially for folks who have already been running windows).

That's more a case of thinking in MS terms, I can't think of any class of app which doesn't have a good, often cheaper Mac alternative, not a Mac version of a windows program, but a different program.

 

[Blue Sweeper]

Blue Sweeper, The linux kernel is on a lot of things but not the Linux that we are talking about here..........

The question was, if Windoze is so bad, why isn't Linux on everything. My answer was, it is in one form or another, for which you gave an example of as the Andriod phone. If the question was rephrased to why is Linux or UNIX not on all PC's, then my answer would have been quite different.

MicroSuck and to a certain extent Intel, have a huge stranglehold on the PC hardware market. If it weren't for the likes of MicroSuck and their policy of buying out all competitors, we would have MUCH better PC's with MUCH better operating systems.

Vista was a complete bundle of shite, which Windoze 7 has put right. XP, with the correct service patches applied was very stable. Trouble is the registry just kept growing and growing so the PC got slower and slower. I regularly (at least once per year) reformatted the hard drive, re-installed XP and it would run fine for another year.

My 5 year old laptop has Linux Mint installed, it's very stable, everything works, all the software on it is free and it's every bit as good as my latest PC from work which has Windoze 7 installed. In some respects, personally I prefer to use the old laptop for everyday use on the Internet.

The OP says he has Windoze 7 on his PC. Fine, why change it if he's happy with it. But you could install Linux and dual boot. A small partition of say 10Gb (it will run on a lot less if you want) is all that is required to try it out. If you boot up Linux, you'll find that you can still access all your documents on the Windoze partition.

 

[stolzy]

If you boot up Linux, you'll find that you can still access all your documents on the Windoze partition.

And vice-versa, I think

 

[shugie]

don't MS have excessive leverage with the hardware manufacturers?

Not really, the only people they could impose conditions on are the big OEMs who have very substantial contracts that allow them to buy Windows very cheaply. All the little guys buy the standard OEM version of Windows through distribution channels, and Microsoft don't really care about that business.

 

[PeterSX]

don't MS have excessive leverage with the hardware manufacturers?

They certainly thought they did

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/

Peter

 

[cookie]

Not really, the only people they could impose conditions on are the big OEMs who have very substantial contracts that allow them to buy Windows very cheaply. All the little guys buy the standard OEM version of Windows through distribution channels, and Microsoft don't really care about that business.

it was the likes of Dell that i was thinking of.

M$ can throw a bit of a paddy if they so much as think of selling a couple of linux boxes, as i recall.

might be different now?

 

[Blue Sweeper]

And vice-versa, I think

WRONG.

Windoze, whatever version, cannot access Linux directly. But it is possible with a bit of knowledge and use of programs like Ext2Read.

http://www.howtoforge.com/access-linux-partitions-from-windows

 

[topcat2006]

I've just put Mint on two PC'S - one for my kids (who are 5 and 2 so will not be used to it's full potential for a year or two) and one for my mother and father in law.

So far all well - We are MAC users here and I found Mint easy enough to use and set up. I have to use Windows at work as that is what everyone has and uses and it is group policy. I hate it and the machines we run.

Mother and father in law have only been using computers for the past 5 years and have just got used to XP so it will be interesting to see how they get on with Mint. We just set it up for them today and have shown them the key differences between XP and Mint. From my point of view it has been easier so far to install and get working than XP and quicker to set up too.

Tom

 

[casperfelix]

So does that mean that a windoz programme running in a VM can access the USB port and still plug and play things?

Yes & No. You can make your virtual machine as sandboxed as you want to avoid it potentially infecting anything else in your computer world. Or you can open it up to access your USB, DVD etc ports and shared drives.