I assume that this is about the size of windows?

Windows doesnt really try to maintain backward compitibilty IMO. Some stuff will work, but its alwasy been hit and miss.

Multipule versions of the same DLL should only matter if you have multipule programs installed with thier own .dll files. Unless windows has a lot of 'bad coding', and has multipule .dlls installed from when you install the OS, that should have no impact on the size of windows.

System restore doesnt take up much room.

There is just as much, if not more, support for hardware with linux, so that doesnt matter either.

Temp files could matter, but its an easy job to blow out teh temp files. It shouldn't have much impact anyway, unless you are using the computer for ages and dont blow out the temp folder.

I probably shouldn't have even replied to this bit, I really dislike 'he said' conversations....

Umm...no. MaOSX will run on most, if not all modern Intel hardware (core2duo onward). There are people out there running OSX on AMD hardware as well, which is hardware that OSX has never used offically.

BTW, 'illegal', maybe, depending on how much legal weight the EULA has in your country.

There is a LOT of 'mac hardware', but these days the difference between mac hardware and 'normal' x86 hardware is virtually nil.

I dont believe the 1% figure, but even if you do....that does not mean that linux wont run on most hardware. If anything, you will have better support for most hardware with linux than with windows.

For example, try getting a SBlive running on Vista/Win7. No fun at alll. the same SBlive cards will work with any modern version of linux.

Software, thats a bit different, but you can run alot of windows software on linux (via WINE). You would have a lot more trouble running most linux software on windows, so in some ways you could say that linux supports more software than windows as well.

You should *really* check contents of C:\Windows\WinSxS folder. Also see this wikipedia article.

I dont actually have a windows install within easy reach right now, but I will have a look next time I have the chance.

I *thought* that you would only get one .dll (of any given type/use) in SxS with a normal install, and that you would only get multipule .dlls of the same type in there if you installed programs. I could be totally wrong on that.

Here is e-mail I got from a guy we are talking about this isssure.

This is the way it works in Linux. Either you get the drivers with the OS (they come with the kernel) or you have to download and compile/install them yourself.

There is no way any OS maker can make sure thay have divers for every hardware out there .There is way way way too much hardware out there.

The hardware makers will only bring out drivers for market share and that is windows.Why would they spend money for support for Linux.

Get a Mac computer or get Linux and you see all the store flopping you doing looking for the sofware to run on a Mac or Linux.The software makers go where money is and the market share is windows.You cannot load windows software on a Mac or Linux like-wise you cannot load windows 7 software on windows 98.



May be so .May be I getting wrong information from pro-windows people that never use Mac or Linux.But see how Linux can support all this hardware and software.

You need drivers and that not coming from the OS makers or the hardware makers.

Out of context quoetes from a closed conversation have no intrest for me.

If you're going to use [bold] try to be right? Hardware support doesnt have to come from the kernel. Take my sound card example from above, you can check the ALSA page and you will find entries like this-

http://www.alsa-project.org/main/ind...ix:Vendor-Asus

BTW, I used the asus page not the creative page because its a much better example.

Eventually most drivers end up in the kernel, but not always.

Pretty much true, but due to the large spead of types of hardware than linux is installed on, its probably got the most support for hardware.

1st off, drivers arent that difficult to write with experience and the technical specs.

2nd, even if you do believe the 1% share thats still a huge number of computers-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer

1% of 1 billion is 10 million, with another 10 million over 6 years. 10 million units is not worth ignoring. Thats just for 'personal computers', not all the other hardware that linux is used on.

3rd, for hardware where the manufacturer doesnt provide linux drivers for there can still be 'community' made drivers. Broadcom is the best example. Even in cases where the manufacturer does provide drivers, there can be open source drivers created by the community, like nouveau for nvidia video cards. In some cases the manufacturers will be making closed source drivers, but also having at least some input into the open soruce driver, like ATI/AMD video cards.

Wrong, like I said above you CAN run at least some windows software on linux, with WINE. You can check the software that will work with WINE on the WINEHQ page-

http://www.winehq.org/

Not that WINE is the only way to run windows software on linux (and BSD/OSX), its just the most common way that people use.

The 1% number comes from web server statistics mostly. Thats got its own flaws, its like getting people to watch a couple of highways and trying to figure out what the most common brand/type of car is.

There is also user agent switching, which works on firefox and chrome (I have no idea about chromium, opera, etc, but I'd be suprised if you cant do it with most other broswers). Since user agent swtiching can change the reported OS and browser, that makes the web server statistics even more suspect.

I know of several linux users who for various reasons always run user agent switching to be IE.X and Windows XP/Vista/7.

*blinks*

Most hardware makers do have linux drivers.

I didn't say something like that. Of course you can't have drivers for any hardware out there.

At first, not only the hardware manufacturers are writing drivers. Take the nouveau driver for NVidia cards. By the way, if the hardware makers don't write drivers for Linux, how comes that all my hardware runs flawlessly with Linux? With drivers from AMD and NVidia for my graphics cards?

Have a look at Debian. In the repositories for the stable version are currently more than 30000 software packages. If you know how to compile from source you have even more software available. What are you missing.

All my Windows games run on Linux also. No problems with that, if you now how to do that.

Why do you think that information about any OS will be right when it comes from people that have never actually run that OS? It can be right, but that is like a talk about cars from people that only ride bicycles. How should they know?

Wrong. All my hardware runs fine with Linux, with drivers that are either coming from open source developers or are written by the hardware manufacturer.

It should say on the box if it support Linux.


Spelling I think that you are trying to say of course you can't have drivers for every hardware out there.



So you saying the software will not work unless you compile from source ? But is that not programming and most people will not know how to do it? And is wine not a windows emulator?

Well using windows emulator?



What do you mean by large speed and types of hardware is why it has the most support.


Than why windows vista when it came out it had truble to run software and hardware and took time for support? Why is it software now does not run on windows 98 or windows Me or windows NT/2000?

I'm sure more than 2% are using windows 98/ME/NT/2000 so why no support? Even if slowing moving to windows XP/vista and 7.Do to some people for what ever reason are slow to upgrade to a new OS.

Why web sites not work well with IE 4 and IE 5.

not everyone made the switch even the fact the numbers are probably very very very very very low using IE 4 and IE 5.


What do you mean by Hardware support doesnt have to come from the kernel? Is it not true the kernel has to support the Hardware .

No idea what mean when some people say windows only supports x86, PPC, and ARM architectures and Linux supports more.Why would that be the case.

When even windows have backward compatibility problems with older windows versions and IE 4/ IE5 do to web masters and software makers going where the market shares are and targeting hardware and software with windows XP/vista and 7.


Than why did windows vista have problems.

More of a grammar error than a spelling error. Not that you can say much about grammar errors, your posts are full of them.

Not really that fair picking on a german person for english grammar errors anyway.

Why should it? It would be handy if it did, but you cant always get what you want. You can send an email to the manufacturers saying you want it to say on the box if it will work with linux if you want.

Not, thats not what TobiSGD was saying at all. What was meant by that is that you have access to 30,000 software packages, and if what you want isnt in the debain repos, you might be able to install it by compiling it.

Compiling is not programming IMO. I cant program for love or money, but I can compile. Its not my idea of fun, but I can do it easy enough when I've tried.

Its not an emulator (WINE Is Not an Emulator), its a compatibility layer. Thats a technicality though really.

Spread, typo. Linux runs on a ton of stuff you will not see a current windows version running on. Besides all the embedded linux out there, like a lot of Sony TVs....

Its not true that hardware support has to come from the kernel.

You've missed at least a few architecture that windows runs (or ran) on, Itanium (IA-64), SPARC, DEC Alpha, MIPS and probably others I dont know about. Apart from Itanium, none of them run any current supported version of windows.

Windows PPC support? Yeah, well, if you want to use NT3.5 or 4.0. Both deader than doornails now.

ARM support was only announced in january 2011, and its only for the 'next version of windows'-

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ocsupport.mspx

With windows, you can only use it on systems that microsoft has built it for. With linux, enough skill in programming, and knowledge of the architecture you can get it running on different systems. Thats why you can get linux running on a lot more platforms than current versions of windows.

It helps that a lot of the hardware unsupported by current windows versions was made to run unix, it makes the job of porting a whole lot easier.

Glib answer- because IE4 and IE5 were crap?

Way to confuse the issue, I was talking about hardware support, not software support.

IMO no-one should be using Win9X online, at all, unless you want to risk something nasty. All windows 9X verions lost support in 2005/2006 (I cant recall exactly). Its probably OK for offline use, but I'd rather use something a little newer, win9X wasnt that great even 'back in the day'.

Win9X is totally unsupported by new hardware anyway.

NTX.X is totally out of support as well. Win2000, unsupported as well, but I'd guess that a lot of hardware that will work with XP has a chance of running on 2K.

As for software, IIRC XP SP2 changed the way a lot of the backend worked with windows compared to 2K. I know of some software that didnt work with 2K when it was supported, but I wouldnt be surprised if at least some software marketed as 'works with XP' would work with 2K.

Longhorn confused matters, and microsoft may not have given out the needed technical specs for vista support. At least some hardware the manufacturers decided that you should buy new hardware and they wouldnt support Vista with the older hardware, they were hoping to sell new parts. Like creative did with the SBlive.

When you go to store to buy software or hardware it say on the box what OS it will run on.




The 30,000 software is that software from Linux or software for windows that will run on Linux.

No idea why hardware makers and software makers will make sure it runs on Linux when even windows is not that great for compatibility issues with alot more money to make to make sure it run on the other windows versions.

I really do not understand this.

The "box" may state what systems it runs on, but that doesn't mean that it won't run on other systems. What you have raised is not a technical issue but one of marketing. Windows without a doubt is at the moment the best marketed OS. That doesn't make it the best.

Neither, in the main each one of these are software programs that have been developed by people or organisations that have nothing to do with Linux, but they run on a system running Linux. By Linux I'm referring to the kernel developers, although really there is no single entity that is comparable to Microsoft, so saying "from Linux" is confusing.

LOL. Come on. I've got 2 motherboard boxes right next to me, and one says "compatible with Windows 7" the other says "certified for Windows Vista". I know for a fact that both board will run with 7, Vista, XP, and quite likely 2K as well.

If the box did state all the OSes it would run with, you'd have some very small writing, or a very big box.

Compatible with Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2003, MacOSX if you dont care about the mac EULA, ReactOS, BSD *insert several BSD versions*, Linux *insert a huge list of linux versions*...and so on.

graemef is dead right, the "compatible with" badges are marketing. IIRC the companies pay microsoft for use of that badge as well.

Thats just linux software. AFAIK there is no windows software in the debian repos....

Because, like a said above, if you have the spec sheets and somebody who knows what they are doing, drivers arent that hard. Linux might have faults, but openess for specs is not one of them.

Anyway, its not always the hardware markers who make the drivers.

As far as money and microsoft goes, well, money is what makes MS go round. Thats why they dont support things like SPARC, DEC alpha or MIPS anymore, and are dropping itanium. They dont think that the effort is worth the payoff. Its not like that is limited to microsoft, canonical only offically supports x86 for the same reason.

Software, thats a different question. Its not like people who make windows software do make sure it runs on linux at all. As for linux software, theres a ton of sources for that. Some are small group of devs, or even a single dev, some of it is at least semi-backed by big private non-linux companies (like Qt), some are backed by big linux companies (like Red Hat).


I agree, but this is going to make things even more fun. Explaining GNU/Linux to nec207 could just be making things even more confusing for them......

Are you saying the hardware makers are paying the software makers and hardware makers are paying the OS makers to push or leasted hardware? Like windows getting money from hardware makers to force people to get lastest OS from Microsoft?

So they bring out OS to force people to upgrade the hardware.

So they do it so old windows versions and other OS do not work.It is all a money thing?

Of course it's a money thing. Look up the

wintel

word.

I'm not sure who is paying who? Or where the kick packs are.

Consumers are paying both of them.