View Full Version : Winows vs Linux
currently:
Windows: Newer breed (NT5) is quite good, especially for desktop use and gaming.
Linux/variants: Good for basic use, but gaming needs some special configurations. Well, the most popular server software speaks for itself.
Macintosh: Some say its the best, but its expensive and only works on propietary hardware.
WeekendLazyness
07-12-2005, 3:43 PM
Right now I'm using XP, but I have used both Linux and Mac OS. I find them all to be very good Operating systems.
ihatezerg
07-12-2005, 3:56 PM
windows no questions.Linux is more for programming
Sikawtic
07-12-2005, 4:19 PM
Linux is supposed to be more stable and virus/adware/spyware free.
Everything runs on Windows though... so I'm thinking about dual booting.
I like Linux because I have complete control over the system and I can tweak and tune it to my heart's content. It also doesn't seem to get the "Windows bloat" where the system starts slowing down after months of use and application installs/uninstalls. I like developing on it because all the tools are there or one command away. From a desktop standpoint I find them equally usable since KDE is in all honestly a clone of the Windows and Mac UI. Obviously Windows has the game advantage though which is why I dual boot.
It would be more interesting if you asked which one would be preferred based solely on OS function. Most everyone needs Windows if they are using the computer for any type of versatility. (I know some Mac users are going to be pissed.) But seriously, how many software programs are introduced for Windows, only to say, "Sorry, no Mac version yet, but we're working on it!" I think it was Napster that had that issue.
Tharisfal
07-13-2005, 1:16 PM
XP is the best yeah sure... It super-duper stupid:mad:. A friend of mine had Wondows 2000 and he would reinstal his sistem every 3 years... And then he instaled XP... 2months and then buff computer brakedown. reinstaling system... Again 2months and then buff computer brakedown. reinstaling... this time WINDOWS 2000. And i have an other 20 people that can say the same thing. And they are computer pro's.
WINDOWS 200 RUUUUUUULLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZ............. for me:D
Frattimonde
07-13-2005, 1:39 PM
OS X Panther, simply because it's so easy to use, not so virus plagued as windows and is wicked fast. And you won't have to reinstall all time like with Win.
oo, now i have a new version of XP, it is called WIndows XP Professional Media Center!it looks cool, but it is'nt a big differece betwen them!:D
WeekendLazyness
07-13-2005, 2:50 PM
XP is the best yeah sure... It super-duper stupid:mad:. A friend of mine had Wondows 2000 and he would reinstal his sistem every 3 years... And then he instaled XP... 2months and then buff computer brakedown. reinstaling system... Again 2months and then buff computer brakedown. reinstaling... this time WINDOWS 2000. And i have an other 20 people that can say the same thing. And they are computer pro's.Wow, this is the exact reply I did not want to see in this thread. For the record, I've been running XP on my desktop for a year. Still runs like a dream.
oo, now i have a new version of XP, it is called WIndows XP Professional Media Center!it looks cool, but it is'nt a big differece betwen them!:DWindows XP Media Center Edition is based off of XP Home, not Professional. Unless they changed something....
GrassDragon
07-13-2005, 3:39 PM
I am a diehard Mac user (my parents used to sell Macs mailorder and we've been using them since). We've recently gotten a Windows machine (a cheapy one on Ebay) for some educational software I need. That would be issue number one with the Mac OS, not everything runs on it. The only other problem I've had is when switching between OS 9 and OS X, but I've since gotten rid of OS 9 (Classic) and it's not a problem.
I <3 my powerbook.
We've recently gotten a Windows machine (a cheapy one on Ebay) for some educational software I need.
Virtual PC for Mac (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc) runs most Windows software quite well under emulation mode. The exception being any graphic intensive games/applications.
GrassDragon
07-13-2005, 5:09 PM
Virtual PC for Mac (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc) runs most Windows software quite well under emulation mode. The exception being any graphic intensive games/applications.
We have a copy and tried it, it was too slow. The application we were using is an online voice conference program for a virtual classroom setting.
Virtual PC for Mac (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc) runs most Windows software quite well under emulation mode. The exception being any graphic intensive games/applications.
We have a copy and tried it, it was too slow. The application we were using is an online voice conference program for a virtual classroom setting.
Agreed. VPC is a pig. You can't logically expect to run one OS inside of another and get anything worth writing home about. Networking a Mac on a Windows netowkr is equally maddening.
GrassDragon
07-13-2005, 6:06 PM
Agreed. VPC is a pig. You can't logically expect to run one OS inside of another and get anything worth writing home about. Networking a Mac on a Windows netowkr is equally maddening.
I actually found that the Classic OS (running OS 9 inside OS X) was surprisingly fast. I could play Diablo 2 adequately, with FPS hanging around 20-25 (and it only got up to 30-40 when I ran OS 9 as the active operating system; my comp is no gaming machine :P).
Networking our Windows machine was not much of a problem either. We have it stashed in the back of a closet somewhere connected to our switch by an ethernet cable and just access it via Remote Desktop Connect, or hook up an LCD if absolutely necessary.
Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are probably the most stable windows youll find.
As long as you arent a complete dumbass when using them. Though the same could be said for other OSes.
And you know what? I am so tired of people claiming that Mac's OSes are so stable and never crash and never have problems. They can be just as freezy, crashy, and problematic as a windows machine.
Personally I will continue to use Windows 2000 and/or Windows XP (For new computer just becuase if I am going to pay 150 for an OS I mine as well get XP Pro and not 2k) -- Fuck the eye candy laden new oses.
-Neo
I actually found that the Classic OS (running OS 9 inside OS X) was surprisingly fast. I could play Diablo 2 adequately, with FPS hanging around 20-25 (and it only got up to 30-40 when I ran OS 9 as the active operating system; my comp is no gaming machine :P).
Perhaps this is because both OS's use similar resources? I don't know, but I do recall Windows XP running like a snail on my G4.
Networking our Windows machine was not much of a problem either. We have it stashed in the back of a closet somewhere connected to our switch by an ethernet cable and just access it via Remote Desktop Connect, or hook up an LCD if absolutely necessary.
But could you transfer files back and forth between Mac and Windows? I found it incredibly hard to setup, but this was a fear years back with older software too, things might have changed since then....or I'm an idiot. ;)
Well emulating x86 on PPC obviously will incur a huge performance hit, but virtualized processors can yield very good performance. I can run four operating systems on my computer at the same time with adequate response times on all the systems. This is even more impressive because the x86 was not designed with virtualization in mind, although the upcoming processors from Intel and AMD will start add special features on the processor to increase performance. For comparison, a proof-of-concept experiment showed the System/390 mainframe could run over 40,000 Linux virtual machines simultaneously.
On another note, when Apple switches to Intel, running Windows XP as a guest OS under OS X will become a very viable option.
Running OSX on a previousally Windows Machine will be easy to.
Apple hasnt said it -- but who the hell are they fooling?
OS Wars anyone?
-Neo
Running OSX on a previousally Windows Machine will be easy to.
Not likely. Apple will most likely implement a unique component on the motherboard that the operating system checks for when the system boots. I'm sure some people who insist on running it will be able to hack their machines to run it, but most people probably won't be able to run it. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Back in the early to mid 1990s Apple actually licensed clone machines made by Power Computing, UMAX, etc. but forced them to stop production because it was hurting the company's profits.
Second of all, why would you want to? There would be no drivers available for anything except the devices Apple uses. You would have a seriously cripppled system.
GrassDragon
07-13-2005, 11:14 PM
But could you transfer files back and forth between Mac and Windows? I found it incredibly hard to setup, but this was a fear years back with older software too, things might have changed since then....or I'm an idiot. ;)
No problems whatsoever. I assigned it a local IP and just did Command+K (Connect to server) and put in that IP and it'll let me load any folders I've earmarked as "shared". I assume that's usually how it works on an exclusively Windows network?
And you know what? I am so tired of people claiming that Mac's OSes are so stable and never crash and never have problems. They can be just as freezy, crashy, and problematic as a windows machine.
Uhh, okay? I never claimed OS X was rock solid, just that I've never had any problems with it. You didn't seem to have any problem with this comment:
For the record, I've been running XP on my desktop for a year. Still runs like a dream.
i think the bad part at linuX is that you can't play games, unless you have a program:( and its hard to save something into it:(so i think windows is kind of good for people that wanna play games, music, movies and other things!
Modred
07-15-2005, 2:02 PM
i tink the bad part at linuX is that you can't play games
Sure you can, just not many commercial games. I play all sorts of games in Linux. And I found a few years ago some sites dedicated to writing games for linux. Let's see if I could dig that up again...
Modred, what games, mario or snake, i mean games like halo,gta,etc.... new ones.As far as i know, to run games and play them in linuX you have to have a program(i really don't remember its name right now:))
Big deal, you dual boot a windows os for playing games, its really not that big a deal for linux users.
Not only that but most linux users are smarter then the average windows idiot.
-Neo
WeekendLazyness
07-16-2005, 11:51 AM
Not only that but most linux users are smarter then the average windows idiot.That's ironic because you use Windows 2000.
Could we please not have any more replys like Neo's again in this thread?
And you know what? I am so tired of people claiming that Mac's OSes are so stable and never crash and never have problems. They can be just as freezy, crashy, and problematic as a windows machine.
That depends on the level of customization of the system, though. Then that becomes a true statement for all OS'. Depending on how much and how well you edit a system, it becomes inherently more prone to issues.
I've screwed out with Darwin and the UNIX kernel behind OS X for years, and I do get a lot more panics than you'd think, but mostly when debugging a new UNIX script, or messing around with some new X11 apps or something.
In general use, I have never seen OS X as a system entirely crash. (This being basic use, by a generic user) The applications themselves have crashed, but they seem to be able to maintain their system integrity and carry on from the crash without harm.
That's ironic because you use Windows 2000.
Could we please not have any more replys like Neo's again in this thread?
What I stated is truth. Its not some generalization, its truth. Many of the people who use windows are total idiots. Did I say every single one was? Chances are that if your on this forum -- or that you game -- you arent a complete idiot when it comes to computers. But can you claim the same for your parents?
That depends on the level of customization of the system, though. Then that becomes a true statement for all OS'. Depending on how much and how well you edit a system, it becomes inherently more prone to issues.
I've screwed out with Darwin and the UNIX kernel behind OS X for years, and I do get a lot more panics than you'd think, but mostly when debugging a new UNIX script, or messing around with some new X11 apps or something.
In general use, I have never seen OS X as a system entirely crash. (This being basic use, by a generic user) The applications themselves have crashed, but they seem to be able to maintain their system integrity and carry on from the crash without harm.
Yeah, I am not saying that anything one way or another, yes windows can be extremely stable, yes, so can macs OS, yes so can linux, etc...
But that doesn't mean that they are always stable.
With my mother's experience, personally I think it was just to much on to little, these macs were outdated hardware wise trying to run OSX in a production enviroment. Just not very smart.
-Neo
WeekendLazyness
07-16-2005, 4:29 PM
What I stated is truth. Its not some generalization, its truth. Many of the people who use windows are total idiots. Did I say every single one was? Chances are that if your on this forum -- or that you game -- you arent a complete idiot when it comes to computers. But can you claim the same for your parents?Well my Mom plays Yahoo! games and my Dad's a director of IT, so yes, I claim that they aren't complete idiots.
Modred
07-16-2005, 11:15 PM
Chances are that if your on this forum -- or that you game -- you arent a complete idiot when it comes to computers. But can you claim the same for your parents?
My mom learned Windows before I did and my dad figured out enough to use internet, email, and word processing, which is all he needs most of the time. Sure, I'm the only one that has gotten into more advanced stuff such as tweaking and dual booting and fixing things, but my 'rents know quite a bit in their own right.
Are WL and I the exception or the rule?
ZeroDarkStar
07-16-2005, 11:34 PM
Are WL and I the exception or the rule?
My father works at HP as a Senior Solution Architect. My mother is completely hopeless. ;)
GrassDragon
07-17-2005, 12:20 AM
My parents owned a huge software and hardware mail order company several years ago. My dad created an entire database system for processing their orders. I like to joke that my parents are completely computer illiterate (it makes me look better anyway :P), but they're not.
But my family uses Macs, so we're automatically classified as the smart crowd, right?
ZeroDarkStar
07-17-2005, 12:22 AM
But my family uses Macs, so we're automatically classified as the smart crowd, right?
Depends on what you mean by smart. :P
Sorry AJ! : P
Night-Hawk
07-17-2005, 12:32 AM
I say linux is better then windows but a shit load complicated then windows lol but macintosh rules love it now viruses adaware spyware sooo safe
Your not getting it though. Most of you here will not be computer idiot -- and most likely not come from computer-idiot families.
Must you contest what I posted?
Its the truth -- otherwise we wounldn't have peopel loosing thousands -- even millions to those retarded nigerian scams -- or people who fuck thier computers up, turning them into zombies, so yet another 'hacker' can attack some site he doesnt like.
Hell all you have to do is look at the polls they do occasionally around the net -- the fact that 16% of whatever group polled didnt know wtf spam was should be a pretty big indicator of morons.
-Neo
Whiteknight
07-17-2005, 2:56 PM
I'm really getting tired of caring. They all have their plus' and minus'. I myself like Macs. I grew up in a mac home, which is probably why.
My parents are hopeless, though. My dad has never been good with technology. At least my mom isn't too bad.
In general use, I have never seen OS X as a system entirely crash. (This being basic use, by a generic user)
Yeah, but it is fun purposely causing kernal crashes. :)
Modred
07-17-2005, 2:57 PM
Must you contest what I posted?
Yes. =P
Even though I somewhat validated what you claim in Geno's Hahaha! Wow... (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=10625) thread...
EDIT: And I just realized that the title for this thread is mispelled. Winows!!
TinyDancer
07-17-2005, 6:40 PM
I use Linux and I'm quite happy with it, I was maybe going to get an emulator so that I can play the sims2 (ugh, I know, but it's fun), but I don't need one to run Unreal Tournament. I like that with Linux I don't have to reboot everytime anything needs updating, it helps a lot. I also like that you can customize the desktop easily. My mom isn't a computer genius, just because she plays games on msn.com doesn't mean that she isn't pretty hopeless with most other computer things. She uses a program called Chief Architect for work, and she's quite adept at that, but there's a difference to knowing a program, and knowing your computer. My dad is prettly similar, but he knows a bit more about networking and such. My brother is the real computer-savvy person in my family, and he uses Linux himself, and doesn't have problems with it. I think it just depends on the person.
Yes rebooting pisses me off to no end.
But I prefer windows. Linux always needs something special to run hardware -- or needs special tweaking to get online, or whatever, and I just don't really want to get into it.
Oh well. I considered sticking linux on my other box, since there is a linux version of this ro server I am setting up, but I just got lazy ;)
-Neo
lets hope the new windows will make the difference!!
Mindslaver
07-29-2005, 9:36 PM
The new Windows will make a change; we must wait and see whether it is positive or negative.
I like Linux better. Specifically Fedora Core and Ubuntu. I dual-boot my computer so if I want to play a graphically intensive game (i.e. HL2) then I go into Windows. Otherwise, I use WINE as an emulation layer to run other, simpler games.
But for programming, besides for games, Windows has very little to offer. Linux doesn't limit you in the ways that Windows does. Plus you have the source code (but that doesn't matter to people, does it?).
Despite being the target of most UI jokes, Linux does have some promising features coming. KDE and GNOME are both working on incorporating OpenGL into the window managers and X which will make OS X-like effects possible.
I'd like to echo Mindslaver's sentiments that developing on Linux is much easier and more convenient. Even when developing in cross platform languages like Java and PHP command line scripting, I'd much rather do it on Linux than Windows because the command line is a first class citizen in Linux.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.