where windows beats linux
i have an old P1 166 mhz system with 64mb edo-ram, and as i had mentioned in a different post, even slackware (a trimmed down distro) with xfce as my window manager was too slow.
strangely, windows 98 on this box runs fine. i find that strange. could anyone explain? bcoz i had read that linux can make do with less computing power than windows. but it doesnt seem to be the case here.
inspite of the negative points of windows, i have found some places where windows is better than linux:
1. windows (98) uses less resources than linux (apparently)
2. installing software in windows is a breeze. its a nightmare in linux.
3. windows has no issues with "starting the x server"
i'd like to elaborate on point 3. i've installed different flavors of linux on various configurations of computers, old and new, and i've found out one common issue: windows has no problem with loading it's "gui", while almost always, linux fails to load "x". the same thing happened on a recent system, a 1ghz p3 with 256mb ram, and an onboard intel chipset. i couldnt believe it when x didnt load (xfce). i installed kde, same thing. i thought maybe the hsync and vsync values were amiss, and i changed them to the correct setting of my monitor in the xorg.conf file, no go. i got some error to the effect that a font path was not found or some crap like that. now, i find that a load of bs. when windows has no problem loading on varying types of hardware (and running faster too), why is linux so picky? (or rather incapable?) imagine if it was a newbie who was installing his first linux distro, and he faced such nightmares. he'd never look at linux again.
now, i'm not saying that windows is flawless. but i find linux way too crappy, and far worse a nightmare for a newbie. which is not a good thing.
1. Maybe so, but win98 is crap
2. Installing software in Linux is simpler than Windows, if you use a distro with decent packagement.
3. I haven't had an X problem in years, but it really depends on the hardware you have.
Windows 98 is a hybrid of DOS spliced with a graphical environment - it doesn't have the features of Linux and NT-based systems like XP. The idea that Linux has lower hardware requirements exists partly because the command-line and network services are more efficient, and partly because you can turn stuff that you can't with Windows if you need to conserve resources.
WRT to the limitations of Linux, I'd say that there are only a few distributions that are competitive with proprietary operating systems. For desktops I would look at Fedora, SUSE or Ubuntu - smaller distributions can't really sustain the R&D effort needed. Graphics configuration is a good example of something that takes thousands of man hours to get to the point where the user can expect it to just work - I had an issue like the one that you described about six years ago on Red Hat (which is now maybe nine generations of distribution back), but not since.
Software installation is the same - Ubuntu have put together a fully functioning system where you choose from a list and the latest version is automatically whisked on to your system. Red Hat and Fedora have the same, although they they haven't got a full graphical interface for it yet.
So you want the equivalent to Win98 with Linux.. install Redhat 6.0.. there's your solution and we don't need yet another thread that has nothing to do directly related to Linux on a technical level in our Linux - General forum and on this site as we have plenty of these, Windows is better than Linux type threads. Contribute to the existing threads that are ongoing if your here to promote Windows.. this thread is closed for many many reasons, one's I've expressed and for many I didn't express just now!
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.|