Page 1 of 2

"Why Windows is better than Linux"

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 14:40
by thamarok
Read @
Nice discussion there.. many people do say good points there although most of the posts are just some fillers.. :)

On Page 5, the last post truly has a very good point:
Why Windows is better than Linux
January 14, 2007 - 6:55pm
HarryRobins (not verified)

Okay, serious post here. The reasons why I think Windows are better than Linux on the desktop.
* Universal GUI. This might sound pathetic, but every application in Windows has a look and feel that easy to pick up. Linux doesn't have this.
* Decent user interface. Gnome is shit in too many ways. KDE is passable while still crossing Fisher-Price with programming geek in a way that just makes it look freaky. Windows is good. Mac OS X is great. Come back to me when someone has tackled half the usability issues in either of the Linux "desktop environments".
* General ease-of-use without needing the command line. Sure, if you're good with Linux, you can do anything you can with Windows - but I bet you have to use some command-line commands to do it. Everything is point and click in Windows. It'd be nice to have a choice though, but having point-and-click access to most things on a system is essential - another thing where Mac OS X shines.
* Ease of application install. Yes, you could argue that apt-get and compiling from source is good, but then I'd call you an idiot. Asking people to go to the command line is missing the point. Application installers and uninstallers are, quite simply, a /good thing/. Download and go - what RPM was /supposed/ to do, but thanks to the million and one distros it became an even more retarded mess (and I hear RPM is a retarded mess anyway). I don't like package repositories - I like going to a site, reading about something, clicking download and running it. It makes perfect sense. Going to a site, reading about something, loading a ****** package manager, searching for it, hope it's been packaged, oh please **** off. It's horrible and people are too shortsighted to understand it.
* Every Linux "killer app" has been ported, not every Windows "killer app". There is no advantage to running Linux application-wise, yet every advantage to running Windows application-wise. With WINE getting increasingly good, this is becoming less of an issue by the day, but some clever sod should do what Lindows aimed to do and run Windows application out of the box with no playing/installing of WINE. Having Adobe Photoshop (GIMP is /still/ shit), Microsoft Word (yes, it's shit. Yes, it's the standard), Nero and dozens of other applications are a good thing.
* Many Linux apps are shite. Many Windows apps are better, and there's more choice. Key examples are publishing and vector graphics software.
* Games support. See above, should become less of an issue as time goes on. Yeah, TransGaming Ceda-whatsit does some of it, but if you're gonna be buying it, you might as well use Windows for just over twice and price and be done with it and any compatibility issues. Don't claim to me that a Doom3 port means Linux has games, it doesn't.
* Driver support and device compatibility. This one is a no-brainer. I wanted to install Linux on my laptop. I looked at the instructions and decided I had better things to do with my time, like... well, anything. And this was /Ubuntu/, supposed the easiest. The fact there aren't open source drivers for Nvidia cards is a joke. You buy something, it runs on Windows. No ifs, no buts.
* Linux isn't an operating system, it's a kernel. There's not one universal thing that Linux is. KDE and GNOME are still "Linux". Bash and csh are both Linux. One Linux system can be completely different to another, yet a Windows system is always a Windows system.
* Linux has too much choice by default, there are very few standard applications. In Windows, if you want a text editor, Word is pretty much the standard. In Linux, you have Abiword,, TeX and whatever K-thing all competing. Confusing for the new user. Give a barebones interface, and let the market decide what people wanna install and use. I know this is often cited as an advantage for Linux, but it really isn't. I mean, Linux is confusing because there IS too much choice. Again, KDE or GNOME. Windows comes with Notepad, Linux has Emacs, Kate, Nedit and god-knows how many others. I know it's odd to criticise too much choice, but imagine a new user trying to find something to use.
* Linux and its applications has too many options. One of it's greatest strengths and weaknesses. Ability to customise = good. Having to wade through great big **** off conf files and menus to get one option = bad. FireFox gets this right - major options in simple menus, geekery in about:config. Very few times do you need to play with altering random text files (although sometimes it has to be done).
* Confusing directory layout, remnants from 70s Unix and POSIX compliance. I like drives, I like a non-fixed directory structure. It makes sense that I can dump files anywhere in my head. As such, anything POSIX-like fucks with my head. And that's not even touching the frankly horrible external drive support, meaning things have to be mounted, although I'm not sure if this is still an issue.
* Windows has the advantage in that it's installed on most of the PCs worldwide.
* Open source development is often a black hole of retardation where things get avoided and aren't developed because they aren't fun, which is a major problem with open source development. Sure, you get kernel virtualisation, but you won't get someone fixing the ****** Mozilla bug tooltip bug which has been there for half a decade. Usability /should be king/.
* "root" and users in Linux et al. Avoid getting the user involved in accounts. It's confusing for most people. Yes, security is an issue. But usability /should be king/.

Of course, these don't apply to the server. And that's where Linux excels. Yeah, some of these really overlap (USA-FUCKING-BILITY), but that's because they are the most important things. You shouldn't need a book to learn how to do something, which Linux still needs.

I like Linux, I really do, I like what they're trying to do, but in the end it's impossible to avoid the fact that it's development structure really isn't cut out for the desktop and few people out there care enough, or even notice it, to do anything about it. A major barrier is Linux people admitting there is a problem, but most seem to ignore it and dismiss it as "STUPID WINDOWS PEOPLE" which is more than a little disheartening.

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 14:46
by Grifter
I read that a long time ago, it was just tiring

"Oh? You have to learn to use linux before you can use linux? What?! I don't want to learn linux, I just want to know how to use windows and then whine because linux isn't windows!"

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 14:47
by thamarok
I never get tired ;)
I usually do work about 23/7.. the 1/7 is for sleeping.. and I do that rarely :lol:

Re: "Why Windows is better than Linux"

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 15:24
by DeanLinkous
On Page 5, the last post truly has a very good point:


He seems to assume people are born with a innate ability to use windows.
(common problem of people who are critical of linux)

I cant help it if he wants us to admit there IS a problem when in actuality HE may have a problem but I sure don't. (another common problem - people assume because THEY have a problem it MUST really be a problem)

Mentioning fisher-price - if anything is fisher price it is that awful XP theme. And a user interface that makes you traverse thru five levels to reach stuff is not genius in my book.
(another common assumption that windows it the *right* way therefore if linux is different it must be the *wrong* way)

go to a site(which you had to search for in the first place), read about it, click to download it, install it with the spyware that comes with it, only to find out it is a *free* trial, only to find out it does not work with the version of directX you have, and you need another app, and it wont uninstall cleanly, and has caused instability in your system
(works for him maybe but not for me - sorry)

as already stated - someone who thinks linux is a REPLACEMENT is wrong it is a ALTERNATIVE and it works differently and acts differently and you should only use it if you like how it works, not so you can try and make it into windows. If you are going to try and make it into windows - then stick with windows.

I certainly do not think windows users are stupid as long as they stay on windows and do not expect linux to be just like windows. If they do well.....

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 17:58
by Lavene
I'm tired of the "Windows is better/ Linux is better" thing. It simply isn't something to discuss. Look at the first post in that discussion:
Here is why Windows is better than Linux. (1) Installing programs is easy with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and you'll see what I mean. (2) Anytime you try to install or change something on your own computer you have to type a password. And god forbid you run the program in root, then you get every warning that exists. (3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel. (4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.

Well, OF COURSE windows is better... for that guy. He would never ever 'get it' with Linux, not in a million years. To him security is annoying and he would even have to read something to learn.

I'm sorry but I just have to agree with him. With such preferences windows is no doubt the BEST OS in the world. But someone tell me; exactly why should I care??


PostPosted: 2007-03-20 19:04
by Noven
Etch works for me so I really dont care what anyone else uses...except that I make my wife use it as well hehe =P

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 21:07
by Fluenza
This entire thread reminds me of "The People Vs. Larry Flynt". Larry Flynt, if you don't know, is (was?) the publisher of Hustler magazine. He was singled out by the government for giving people what they wanted.

The lesson learned? You don't get singled out by the establishment for going against the grain. You get singled out because you offer the people what they want. This lesson is timeless and as applicable to the Linux/Windows argument as it has ever been to anything else that has ushered in change.

Windows is the establishment. Linux, or free software, is what the people want. Linux gets singled out because it is what the people quietly yearn for.

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 21:42
by thamarok
Now this is how I like it :P
I picked up that topic and posted about it here to see your comments' and yes, I do agree with all of you :)

PostPosted: 2007-03-20 22:54
by dmn_clown
Having Adobe Photoshop (GIMP is /still/ shit)

Why do people continually compare the GIMP with Photoshop? A better proprietary comparison for the GIMP would be JASC's Paint Shop Pro which only handles low-end image formats same as The GIMP.

Cinepaint (Film GIMP) is Photoshop's competitor.

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 00:06
by DeanLinkous
and the GIMP ROCKS!

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 00:06
by Fluenza
dmn_clown wrote:
Cinepaint (Film GIMP) is Photoshop's competitor.

I just recently installed CinePaint on my machine. I was struck by how similar the GIMP and CinePaint are. Of course, CinePaint offers a lot more than the GIMP does, but they're cosmetically similar. When I first saw the CinePaint splash screen, I wondered if CinePaint was a fork of the GIMP, albeit geared toward professional higher end users.

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 00:44
by un1xer
I really don't give flying f*** about that guys opinion, is he trying to convince others or just him self?
Linux is made by the community to the community, not to people who don't take their time to learn how to use their own pc's , that idiot likes to be driven, me, i like to drive.
Let him and all other M$ slaves keep using intrusive os's, they don't have the ability to use any thing else, i just pity them.

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 01:53
by dmn_clown
DeanLinkous wrote:and the GIMP ROCKS!

For what it does, yes it does rock. I love the interface and how well it works with a duel monitor system!

Cinepaint also rocks! (It started as a fork of the GIMP but is in the process of a complete and long re-write from GTK to FLTK to bypass a nasty GTK+ Windows only bug it will eventually include a 3D modeler and all kinds of cool video editing goodies).

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 02:03
by Blyiss
Why? That guy is right. Windows are nicer than Linux, indeed...for cattle.

PostPosted: 2007-03-21 02:15
by simen
Well. No need to state the obvious: There is a question of taste here. I think most of the users on this forum are particular in the fact that we find working in the command line at least as comfortable as working with a mouse. We certainly all agree on a lot of the advantages to using GNU/Linux. The Linux crowd as well as the Windows runners are animals of habit. Put me in front of a Windows or OSX system today, and I feel pretty hopeless (I haven't even tried Vista). Over my brief life, I've switched between Linux and DOS/Windows five times. It was always a shock, but the last time I switched, it felt like coming home again. Beloved emacs!

I rarely "advocate" Linux (in the sense: shoving live cd-s down everybody's throats), although I try not to let go any opportunity to speak well of free software. Why "should" people run Linux? (Or should I say "use"?) Because in the long run, free software protects our freedom of speech. Period. I know people who appreciate this, but still feel that Linux is an unwieldy OS to use. Since my girlfriend's laptop broke down, she's been using my old, booting in a rather spartan Etch installation. She says it's nice with a desktop that doesn't feel so corporate. The final judgement is somthing like "Ok. Usually works, but kind of weirdly." Synaptic, for some reason, comes out as cryptic. My own experience learning apt was quite the opposite: a complete enlightenment! "No longer having to stalk shady sites for software? All I need is in one place!"

I increasingly see people I know use Linux. Not because they are geeks -- they still don't think their OS is their friend -- but, well, cause they're leftists.8) For my part, I'm happy as long as my neighbor is happy to boot into whichever OS. People are going to understand the stake in software freedom more and more, though. Governments, businesses and schmucks and hobos of all kinds are moving towards FOSS. We'll see what comes. In the meantime, I'd really appreciate it if people had the politeness at least to not publish their "free" stuff in proprietary formats.

Still ranting,

PS. And another thing! Something I think Linux lacks on the desktop, (and certainly a job for Canonical ;)): some automatical su-function. Every now and then, I thoughtlessly edit a root-owned file from nautilus, and instead of prompting me for my root or (in sudo environments) regular password to save, well... lucky me, I think bash is the best invention since chop sticks. What am I supposed to do if I don't want to use the terminal, because I still have nightmares from using DOS? Disclaimer: I only use GNOME. Linux s0x!