LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-05-2004, 05:47 PM   #1
jordban
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: 0
Linux / Windows Pros & Cons


Hello,
Im working on a website thats going to help the viewer learn about:
+History of Linux
+Differences between Linux and Windows, the pros and the cons
+Correcting common mythes
+Which OS is best for you
+Switching to linux

I know there are hundreds of threads and websites debating which is better and they all have there good points, but i thought it would be appropriate that i made this thread so i could make one final big list of the pros and cons of windows and Lnux. Please post the OS and some pros and cons. Once we get a list that we feel does a good job of reflecting the OS's i'll add the list to the site.

Example:
Windows:
pro- for first time computer users windows is easier to use and setup

This is true and not true. Generally windows is easier, but there are linux distributions out that are easier to set up and install for first time computer users than windows. So please post these pros and cons as a generalization of all Linux distributions because thats what makes up Linux.

Thanks,
Jordan

P.S please dont flame me for asking this, if any mods find this unacceptable please just close the thread and leave it at that, hopefully this will be a good chance for everyone to learn and not act like a bunch of idiots.
 
Old 12-05-2004, 05:50 PM   #2
ror
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 583

Rep: Reputation: 33
actually windows isn't any easier to set up than linux, merely that it was already installed so the user didn't NEED to set it up.
 
Old 12-05-2004, 05:56 PM   #3
jordban
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 17

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Windows:
pro
+More money is being spent on developing software for windows.
+Windows is compatible with any PC hardware setup
con
+Windows costs atleast $100
+Windows will always have a problem with spyware
+Windows will always have a problem with virus's
+Windows isnt very stable
+Windows isnt very secure
+Windows isnt very customizable
+Windows in slower
+Windows wont listen to users input, they dont care
 
Old 12-05-2004, 06:15 PM   #4
ror
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 583

Rep: Reputation: 33
more compatible? windows only runs on x86, linux runs on pretty much anything.

oh, and here's just randomly I was discussing this topic, so have a random reason why I use linux


[23:25:24] <ror> the nice thing about linux is you don't have to download new programs every time you want to do something tho
[23:26:02] <ror> like with windows, if you want to rename files you download RenamerPro6 or whatever to do it, probably several MBs program and probably commercial or spyware filled
[23:26:23] <ror> or if you want to join mpegs together, or if yuo want a firewall, or whatever
[23:26:43] <ror> you just download more and more (often commercial) programs and your disk just gets full of shit
[23:27:08] <ror> where with linux stuff like that can all be done fairly simply through free small programs usually included in nearly every distro
[23:27:19] <ror> although the windows command line can often do that shit too
[23:27:49] <ror> like joining mpegs, you don't need to donwload anything, just at the commadnd line "type file1.mpeg file2.mpeg > joined.mpeg" and it should join em
[23:28:20] <ror> type being the dos equivalent of gnu/linux's cat
[23:28:48] <ror> but stuff like that is never documented with windows, instead people are told to download yet *another* program to do simple tasks
[23:29:14] <ror> windows would be fantastic if the command line was revamped and windows was actually documented
 
Old 12-05-2004, 06:32 PM   #5
jordban
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 17

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by ror
more compatible? windows only runs on x86, linux runs on pretty much anything.

oh, and here's just randomly I was discussing this topic, so have a random reason why I use linux


[23:25:24] <ror> the nice thing about linux is you don't have to download new programs every time you want to do something tho
[23:26:02] <ror> like with windows, if you want to rename files you download RenamerPro6 or whatever to do it, probably several MBs program and probably commercial or spyware filled
[23:26:23] <ror> or if you want to join mpegs together, or if yuo want a firewall, or whatever
[23:26:43] <ror> you just download more and more (often commercial) programs and your disk just gets full of shit
[23:27:08] <ror> where with linux stuff like that can all be done fairly simply through free small programs usually included in nearly every distro
[23:27:19] <ror> although the windows command line can often do that shit too
[23:27:49] <ror> like joining mpegs, you don't need to donwload anything, just at the commadnd line "type file1.mpeg file2.mpeg > joined.mpeg" and it should join em
[23:28:20] <ror> type being the dos equivalent of gnu/linux's cat
[23:28:48] <ror> but stuff like that is never documented with windows, instead people are told to download yet *another* program to do simple tasks
[23:29:14] <ror> windows would be fantastic if the command line was revamped and windows was actually documented
"x86 or Intel 80x86 is the generic name of a microprocessor architecture first developed and manufactured by Intel." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

So x86 is a type of processor?
But doesnt windows run on all processors sold today?

Please elaberate!
ANd i think we all know what i ment was hardware like video cars, modems, sound cards etc
 
Old 12-05-2004, 06:37 PM   #6
ror
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 583

Rep: Reputation: 33
x86 is a hardware architectures. Yes IBM compatible PCs are x86, but there are things like power pc (mac), solaris (sun), and plenty of other processor architectures out there.

oh yeah on:

+Windows will always have a problem with virus's
+Windows isnt very stable
+Windows isnt very secure

UNIX and LINUX will always have a problem with viruses.

And Windows NT (2k/XP) is as stable as linux, and it's not the OS that's insecure, it's the junk on top of it.
 
Old 12-05-2004, 07:39 PM   #7
scuzzman
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Hilliard, Ohio, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Kubuntu
Posts: 1,851

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ror
UNIX and LINUX will always have a problem with viruses.

And Windows NT (2k/XP) is as stable as linux, and it's not the OS that's insecure, it's the junk on top of it.
Both these points can be argued in multiple ways. The simple fact of the matter is, yes, with intelligent system administration, any OS can be secure. But, the user-base that Windows currently has makes it an insecure OS. People don't download patches (windows update), thus allowing for the rampant expansion of multiple virii, a lot in the past 12 months (need I remind people of the multiple LSASS and RPC bugs found in the OS, the multiple "force-feeding" holes found in Internet Explorer and Outlook Express). This is aside from the fact that Internet Explorer is part of the operating system. Many experts have noted IE for its insecurity and actually advised people to use Firefox. Does this not make the OS insecure? Only if you remove the network cable...
Now on to Linux: Granted, open-source software has its flaws. In fact, it has just as many as software written by Microsoft. It's the software's open source nature that makes it more secure. Whereas only Microsoft employees can look at Microsoft code, anybody can look at open-source code and diagnose problems and release patches before they're exploited. This is aside from the fact that the Linux user base (primarily) is used to updating software to maintain security, thus making it more secure.
Now, on to the issue of stability. I hace had Linux computers running for months without a reboot. Take a computer and install Windows XP Professional. Run it for 48 hours, and you'll require at least one reboot. Even without an internet connection. Or, even better, remvoe and reinstall a mouse driver. Don't know about you, but I can do that in Linux and not have to reboot anything. Windows, I have to reboot twice (once after removing, once after reinstalling).
 
Old 12-05-2004, 09:00 PM   #8
phenix_20au
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi i'm not sure if this is the place or what but i would just like to know what are the official system requirements for ubuntu linux as u can see i am a newbie to forums and the linux stuff i work at a school and have been asked to try to finfd out please can someone help me out. If so send me a reply back to my e-mail at phenix_18au@yahoo.com thankyou in advance
 
Old 12-06-2004, 01:43 AM   #9
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
phenix_20au - go to the Ubuntu website, they will have all that information there.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 04:00 AM   #10
Zuggy
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 256

Rep: Reputation: 30
Here are some of the things I've thought of. If I think of anything else I'll post it.

Windows
Pros:
Easy for first time users
Compatible with all PC hardware
doesn't require use of command line
large collection of games (I was going to say software but Linux has that)
pretty looking

Cons:
Expensive
In-secure
Bug prone
Crash prone (although better in XP then previous windows versions)
heavily targeted for virus attacks
bloated
has to run on a specified system

Linux
Pros:
Secure
Less prone to bugs
Very Stable
Many distros means there's a flavor for you
can run on a wide range of hardware. Not just old or new but PC, Mac, and embedded systems (PDA's cellphones, etc.)
high quality software (many of it free in both source and beer fashion)
cheap and in most cases free

Cons:
Hardware problems (configuring different hardware)
Not always good for new users (see note below)
requires use of command line (see note below)
installing software can be a pain (once again, look below)

Notes: The few cons that Linux has are glaring and will probably never completely go away. But there is hope. Linux has made serious leaps in the past couple years that re helping these problems. Distros like Mepis, Xandros and Linspire have great automatic hardware detection and make installing programs a cinch. An example is since Mepis is based on Debian you can use apt-get to install programs instead of compiling from source. Desktop Linux has a ways to go but is making leaps and bounds getting there.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 09:47 AM   #11
riluve
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: CentOS-4
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by ror
actually windows isn't any easier to set up than linux, merely that it was already installed so the user didn't NEED to set it up.
Actually, a person could argue that windows is easier to set-up for the same reason its harder to put natural gas in your vehicle, because windows (and gasoline) are more prolific. Even if the process is equivalent, its harder to find help when you need it.

For every person that I know who is familiar with Linux, there are 100-200 familiar with Windows. Also, Windows is more homogenous. That is, even if someone knows about Linux that doesnt mean they have even heard of the distribution I am having trouble with.

Dont take me as a proponent of Windows (though I do find XP acceptable). I am not. But lets be honest, frank and unbiased here. After all, that is the REAL problems with windows, its lack of integrity. Dont become the thing you hate.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 10:10 AM   #12
riluve
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: CentOS-4
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by scuzzman
Now, on to the issue of stability. I hace had Linux computers running for months without a reboot. Take a computer and install Windows XP Professional. Run it for 48 hours, and you'll require at least one reboot. Even without an internet connection. Or, even better, remvoe and reinstall a mouse driver. Don't know about you, but I can do that in Linux and not have to reboot anything. Windows, I have to reboot twice (once after removing, once after reinstalling). [/B]
Blah, I have a few XP boxes that have been running all year (and one of them is the original pre-release XP Pro without a single patch). Most have been running 6-10 months without a restart. Restarting between driver removal and installation is simply a step added to allow greater compatability with drivers that are poorly written. After all, when someone installs a crappy driver, they will blame windows, not the crappy driver. I really find it hard to bash XP, beyond the obvious security issues. In fact, W2K wasnt bad either. OK, the bloated code is an issue as well.

What is the great advantage Windows has over Linux? It has a responsible adult that you can complain to and get problems addressed (maybe not fixed, but at least addressed). With Linux, its a crapshoot. For example, our hardware team has a few people on it who still use as their primary workstation some Pentium machine with DOS 6.22 and B&W 8 monitors. They are as anti-windows as a person can be.

However, after 3-4 years of developing hardware and using Linux and not getting basic OS problems addressed, they are begrudgingly going back to Windows for their final products. Its a simple cost ratio time to market decision. For a business not supporting its own Linux distribution, Windows is worth the added expense and the eating of some crow.

Last edited by riluve; 12-06-2004 at 10:22 AM.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 01:13 PM   #13
Zuggy
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 256

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by riluve
What is the great advantage Windows has over Linux? It has a responsible adult that you can complain to and get problems addressed (maybe not fixed, but at least addressed). With Linux, it�s a crapshoot. For example, our hardware team has a few people on it who still use as their primary workstation some Pentium machine with DOS 6.22 and B&W 8� monitors. They are as anti-windows as a person can be.

However, after 3-4 years of developing hardware and using Linux and not getting basic OS problems addressed, they are begrudgingly going back to Windows for their final products. It�s a simple cost ratio � time to market decision. For a business not supporting its own Linux distribution, Windows is worth the added expense and the eating of some crow.
Have you ever tried to get support when you have a problem that's OS related? I had a problem when I was using Windows 98 with regedit not opening. I sent HP (the maker of that pc) and they told me to contact Microsoft. So I sent Microsoft several e-mails and called twice. When I called they said they had to research the problem and would call back, and didn't, and the e-mails went unanswered. So I did my own research and found I had to reformat. No biggy

Then about 4 months later I receive an e-mail telling me I have to re-format.

Now Linux may not have an "adult" to complain to but it certainly has enough people to help fix your problem, and that's the real solution. You can cry and whine all you want but if you can't get the problem fixed it doesn't help. I have never had a Linux problem that i haven't gotten atleast 3 possible fixes for in 24 hours on this forum and there are Linux forums out there that are even bigger.

Microsoft may have an adult to talk to but it's more like a drunk adult. It doesn't help any.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 01:23 PM   #14
ror
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 583

Rep: Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally posted by riluve
Actually, a person could argue that windows is easier to set-up for the same reason its harder to put natural gas in your vehicle, because windows (and gasoline) are more prolific. Even if the process is equivalent, its harder to find help when you need it.
yes, it's actually MUCH harder to find help with windows. With linux everything is documented down to the last detail, with windows there is almost NO documentation, and if errors DO occur it's extremely hard to find documentation to help fix them.
 
Old 12-06-2004, 01:31 PM   #15
riluve
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: CentOS-4
Posts: 142

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Zuggy
[B]Have you ever tried to get support when you have a problem that's OS related? I had a problem when I was using Windows 98 with regedit not opening. I sent HP (the maker of that pc) and they told me to contact Microsoft. So I sent Microsoft several e-mails and called twice. When I called they said they had to research the problem and would call back, and didn't, and the e-mails went unanswered. So I did my own research and found I had to reformat. No biggy

Then about 4 months later I receive an e-mail telling me I have to re-format.
Well here is what I am talking about - if you are a company, say HP, and you have a problem, you will have a contact at MS (I mean an actual name a phone number not an email distribution point). Thus, they will give you at least a direct responsible sounding lie that you can put into your schedule and take with you to a corp meeting.

If you go to a meeting with a linux forum as your reference, then it's not going to look as reliable/factual/professional. And in the end the CEO might want to call and get someone fired for providing bad information - who are you going to fire from a forum?

So, maybe its all about looks (if MS has taught you anything it should be that people care more about looks than substance), and maybe its about having a responsible party to lay the blame on, in either case, it gives MS a powerful edge.

Last edited by riluve; 12-06-2004 at 01:32 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Remote home directory - pros & cons? utabintarbo Linux - Networking 2 01-31-2005 02:10 PM
Linux pros and cons thrix General 18 11-26-2004 07:47 PM
SuSE 9.1 Pro, Pros & Cons Lola Kews Linux - Newbie 20 06-10-2004 12:38 AM
Pros and Cons Linux vs Windows XP obsideus Linux - Newbie 19 12-02-2003 10:03 PM
RH 9.0 or Mandrake 9.1 pros & cons a1t Linux - Software 3 08-20-2003 05:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration