Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Linux vs Windows a real life comparison
piratePenguin:
Have you ever tried to keep Windows XP running for a few weeks? From people I know who tell me they have, it ain't pretty.
Maybe that's a good thing, actually. Because less people will keep their computers on 24/7 and the enviornment will be better off.
Or maybe Microsoft will sell more server editions of Windows.
toadlife:
--- Quote from: Master of Reality ---I dont see how you can say that with any credibility when you just admitted you had no idea what Microsoft Windows 2003 was, and assumed that it was Microsoft Windows XP.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I've seen benchmarks that show the opposite.
toadlife:
.....and now I've seen benchmarks that show samba 3 to be faster than WIn2k3. So which is it? It's funny how one benchmark with show one thing and another will show something completely the opposite.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Windows crashed on me when I right-Kernel panics on Redhat 9.. Interesting. Any idea what they were about (they have error messages to point in the right direction (and they worked for me))?
--- End quote ---
It's over a year ago, I'm guessing the motherboard driver. I agree with you about the error messages though - Windows is shit at reporting errors.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I suck at Windows because it crashed when I right-clicked?
--- End quote ---
Well who ever installed and set up the system lacked experiance, as well as the people using it if they didn'y know what they were doing and used Admin accounts for everything and downloaded and installed shitware from p2p.
I know some other people here have had problems with Windows but there are many people who don't, either this is just luck or it's something that some people are doing right and others are doing wrong.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---How would malware be the problem? Maybe explorer.exe or something is infected.
--- End quote ---
Probably, but yes it is fucking hard to diagnose what's wrong when Windows goes wrong and yes it is a flaw in the operating system but it's something MS don't want to fix.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- Know what the best way to check would be (check file sizes/MD5 sums)? It could be something that explorer.exe uses either,
--- End quote ---
Have you checked them then?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I learned nothing new in that post.
--- End quote ---
If you've listened to my advice then it's a clean install that's only used to access the Internet from a limited account and there are no shitty 3rd party memory resident security programs running then.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Have you ever tried to keep Windows XP running for a few weeks?
--- End quote ---
Windows 2000, yes but not XP since I've had not reason to but after a couple of days I haven't notice any significant degredation in performance. I know (if my hardware supports it, I'll find out) I might be able to get it to hibernate instead of closing down.
I'm not trying to say Windows rules or anything (I've already pointed out two of its faults in this post). I'm just saying that (if you know what you're doing) it isn't all that bad, it doesn't BSOD every 6 miniutes or when you right click a folder, it runs well on 256MB of RAM and boots in an acceptable time, all of the aforementioned don't make it a good OS, they're just things you'd expect from a good OS and I've pointed out some of these things that Windows doesn't have that it should.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---
Well who ever installed and set up the system lacked experiance
--- End quote ---
He doesn't quite lack experience, just intelligence. We both have about the same experience with computers, but I've always been more curious about how everything worked. Ever since our first computer - running Windows 95.
Ya know, Windows makes it really hard to become intelligent. It treats every user as a fucking retard, even intelligent and curious users, and because it's not so intelligent at setting things up itself (the default settings), it makes it really hard to run it securely.
My two Windows brothers browse the web in an administrator account, because they're not intelligent (their OS/nothing educated them. I tried a small bit, but fuck them if they didn't listen.). Me and my Mac OS X brother browse the web in user accounts. Me because I got A BIG FUCKING WARNING MESSAGE when I first tried to start KDE as root (and also other reasons. Stuff I read, and Mandrake already setup intelligent defaults.), and him because Mac OS X has sane defaults just like Mandrake. It's not because we're more intelligent than the other guys. Back then I knew nothing about GNU/Linux or security or user accounts, yet I refrained from browsing the web as root because I was educated by KDE and some stuff I read, and Mandrake's defaults aren't retarded. The Mac OS X guy and the other two Windows users are probably on about the same level intelligence-wise (Nicholas may find that offensive.). None of them would think of setting up a user account by themselves (they would only have to do this on Windows. And Slackware.) for general computer use.
There's another reason Windows sucks: it doesn't make it easy for it's users to become intelligent, instead it assumes retardism (which is often true). That's alright, as long as it has intelligent defaults, which it doesn't.
So many extra Windows computers are infected by malware because of this, and it's sad. Windows brought this upon itself (note that I didn't say Microsoft did it, because what Microsoft did is develop Windows, which is the software I'm discussing. This is about Windows, not Microsoft.).
Now I'm thinking that I just accidentally found a good reason that if the market was dominated by GNU/Linux or Mac OS X, they'd cope with malware much better. All that typing wasn't quite so useless.
Now I'm thinking: WHERE THE FUCK IS MUZZY!? :p
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version