Linux: not designed for casual users
 

A review of Linux 2.2.4 (Redhat Linux 7.2 distribution)

Linux: (difficult for computer newbees)
I would consider myself a casual user with no progamming skills. But I'm quite familiar with MacOS, Win3.1, DOS, Win9x, WinNT and Win2K. I know lots of the console commands and adminstration configuration of NT systems. When I installed RedHat Linux 7.2, I was rather disappointed with the OS's performance compared to my Win2K box. My AMD K6-2 system w/64MB ram runs Win2K and Office2K fine and OS response speed is good and my system hardly crashes. Under Linux, I had to dig through tons of websites just to get my CD-ROM drive to work. (if it wasn't for my experience with other OS, then I probably wouldn't be able to get very far with my Redhat distribution)

(Linux performance over-hyped)
Performance is an issue with the Linux OS compared to Windows2K, NT. A clean install of Redhat 7.2 on my system was easy thanks to Redhat's GUI installation. But system performance lagged severely behind Win2K. Apps, such as Office2K, IE6, Netscape Gecko 6 ran smoothly on my i586class machine w/64MB RAM with little disk swapping. But in Linux (redhat distribution), Gecko, Mozilla, StarOffice and OpenOffice take about 5-10 time as long to load. ABout 15sec for Gecko, about 23sec for OpenOffice and StarOffice. Also, Netscape 4.7, Gecko, Mozilla seem sluggish compared to it's Windows conterpart (IE and Gecko) - more disk swapping, longer loading time, less responsible. OpenOffice, an alternative to my Office2K (which ran smoothly on Win2K) was extremely sugglish in Linux. It takes hell long to load. About 25sec just to load OpenOffice in Linux, compared to about 4sec to load Office2K in WIn2K. OpenOffice, even after it was loaded ran sluggishly.

(Windows works best for casual users)
Summary: The hype that Linux is faster and more stable than Win2K is just not true. On my K6-2 400 box w/64MB ram ran RedHat 7.2 sluggishly. In fact it's like trying to run NT4 on a Pentium66 w/32MB RAM (which I have tried to be very slow and sluggish).

(Benefits of Linux for Enterprise, Corporate environments)
For programers and ITs, and Corporate environments, Linux is nice especially because it's open-source. (I obtained Linux Redhat, OpenOffice, StarOffice from free downloads) When you think about loading Win2K and Office2K on like 30 corporate systems, that would be very costly, whereas Linux and OpenOffice is completely free.

However, for casual computer users who just need their computers for email, web, reports and term papers, and listening to music, Windows is WAY BETTER. It's faster and a lot easier to use. (even Win9x is better than Linux, because it's almost like Win2K, just a less stable but a lot easier to use and a lot faster than my sluggish Redhat 7.2)

(footnote: difficult for gamers)
Hardcore gamers who download nightly programmer's builds for their GeForce4 might be able to download and compile Linux ports of games. But for casual gamers who want to pop in their HalfLife CD and click install, Linux won't work for you.
However, most linux distribution includes simple games likes board games, card games, etc.

this is a site for helping people who want to learn linux, posting stuff like this is pointless, and... well wrong, but i couldn't care less abuo arguing, so infact...

damnit yea you're right. i agree, as does everyone else here. thanks for the enlightenment.

ummm.. i didn't see a question in that post. i thought this forum was for newbies with questions.. not trolls.

don't know about you but i get performance out of my linux better than windows.. hmmm.. and i would consider myself a somewhat casual user..

-trickykid

The same is here, my inux box is running on AMD 850 MHz is fast, I mean it is fast, it outperforms my friends Pentium4 systems running windows with basically the same hardware under the hood. I believe it is because of how two OS's were thought of in minds of developers, some were forced by time constrains and others were doing it for themselves. I am not going to list the benefits of linux over windows, just because two systems are different in their cores. As for windows I stopped using it completely about two month ago not because I hate windows as a corporation, because linux is much better and stable. Of course there are things that can break and there are things that won't work out of the box in linux. But hey, I consider it a challenge to make a clock ticking.

Or, how about NOT arguing the toss with someone who's only out after an argument... I vote we argue amongst ourselves, not with "outsiders" hehe.

I hope nobody minds a newb to these forums thowin' out an opinion, but I thinks it's a troll too.

He's got some valid points, but he fails to mention the biggest reason I run linux: it's fun. I don't know about you, but I get sooo bored with an OS that doesn't challenge me. It takes all the thinking out of running a computer.

I'm not sayin' I don't run Win2K along side Linux to handle my gaming needs, because I do. But it's all part of the fun of doing battle with my computer. ;)

anyone want to guess what we do to troll threads around here?