"Why Windows is better than Linux"

[Blyiss]

Microsoft made windows to fish money out of people. And it will choke with its power one day like it happened already many times. Great historical examples of this fall are Rome Empire and the USSR. People are lazy by their nature and slow to change things they got used to, but none of them wants to be fooled. They will turn to Linux as soon as they realize the benefits it offers.

[fangorn]

I said it before, but why not repeat yourself. The level of pain induced by using windows (devices stop working, windows losing settings of DVD-drive, ...) is not high enough to overcome the phlegma of most windows users.

And the People calling themselves powerusers (which means that they can start regedit and type in all the cool registry hacks posted in windows media) got so used to reinstall the Operating system every 1 or 2 months, they don't even ask themselves if this is necessary.

[thamarok]

Windows has endless annoyances.
Linux has sometimes problems with hardware and drivers.

Windows has a very wide (commercial) software variety.
Linux has a wide open-source software variety.

Windows is perfect for gaming.
Linux doesn't have any good blockbuster games.

Windows is perfect for music production.
Linux is the worst for music production.

Windows is commercial and even if you buy it, you still don't fully own it.
Linux is free as in freedom and you own every piece of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
That's all that there is to say about Linux and Windows.

[Blyiss]

Windows has endless annoyances.
Linux has sometimes problems with hardware and drivers.

Windows has a very wide (commercial) software variety.
Linux has a wide open-source software variety.

Windows is perfect for gaming.
Linux doesn't have any good blockbuster games.

Windows is perfect for music production.
Linux is the worst for music production.

Windows is commercial and even if you buy it, you still don't fully own it.
Linux is free as in freedom and you own every piece of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
That's all that there is to say about Linux and Windows.

That's true for now, but things can change. Linux people can't work harder than they do. But unlike Microsoft they made an excellent OS, the base for everything. And Etch is a great example. The more people will use Linux, the more programmers will be involved and the more software will be produced for Linux.

[Cope57]

Windows - So easy to use, a caveman can do it!

Sorry Geico

I miss the days when Windows 3.0 - 3.11 were used. Only geeks used computers.
It actually took knowledge about a PC to operate it, and Microsoft has made it so that everyone with or without technical knowledge to use it.

Even though I stopped using Windows back in 2003, I am still hounded by individuals with limited knowledge asking me how to do stuff in Windows.
The most popular one is I am asked is if I know how to fix it.
I have been quite helpful to those that "break" their Windows systems, but lately I just tell them "No I can not fix it, maybe you should install Linux."

Linux is user friendly
Windows is idiot friendly.

My opinion is just like everybody elses, it is just a opinion.

[Ingov]

Linux is user friendly
Windows is idiot friendly.

Windows is friendly for viruses and other malware.
I reinstalled XP and visited merely a couple of web-sites after which AVG antispyware detected an adware attached to Internet Explorer. Now, when I have to switch to Windows, I use Opera, which I don't like, +firewall + avast, but no router. I am as an obedient person as they can expect. It's just unbelievable that they want the users through away their older computer in flavor of Vista that is not compatible with the ones that have ram less than 500 mb and no DVD drive. Do they really think that people are so stupid? Why do I need this monstrous computer, if all I need is just to send a couple of mails and read some articles from Wikipedia?

No, no, Windows is not friendly at all. It's an illusion and a myth produced by Microsoft. Windows' friendliness is directly proportional the amount of money you are willing to pay.

[GMouse]

Microsoft made windows to fish money out of people. And it will choke with its power one day like it happened already many times. Great historical examples of this fall are Rome Empire and the USSR. People are lazy by their nature and slow to change things they got used to, but none of them wants to be fooled. They will turn to Linux as soon as they realize the benefits it offers.

Actually, the causes of the fall of Rome and the fall of the USSR are unrelated to each other and to MS.

Rome fell because a long series of incompetent (or outright crazy) rulers slowly weakened it, both economically and by encouraging corruption. The empire held on for centuries, overextended and weak, before Alaric's sack of Rome or Odoacer sending the Western Emperor's regalia to the Eastern Emperor. They simply could not field an amry capable of defending their borders anymore, and what officers existed were so corrupt that in one case, they refused to prevent the sack of a Roman city, simply because the city didn't offer to bribe them into it, despite taxes supporting the military.

The USSR fell for economic reasons. The move to communism decoupled incentive from productivity, so productivity (and consequently GDP) depressed to the minimum that each person could get by with. People gave what was required of them, not what they were capable of. So, the USSR slowly decayed from the inside, losing buying power as it went. When they finally gave up on communism to turn to a free market, they made the transition too quickly and rushed to privatize their industries. Contrast this with China's move to a market economy, in which the leadership remained strong throughout the transition, and they have slowly loosened control bit by bit. We can criticize their handling of domestic policy, but economically, they're making well-executed reforms.

Microsoft has not fallen, nor do I suspect it will. Not entirely. Many people have pointed out that Microsoft as it is now parallels IBM in the days that MS was an upstart, stealing IBM's market share. Their monopoly, however they gained it, led to several conditions common to monopolies. First, with no meaningful competition, prices do not fall to their natural rate. They're free to charge over and above that. With the lack of meaningful competition, it becomes in their best interest to continue to milk their monopoly rents, rather than improve.

In every profession, the exertion of the greater part of those who exercise it, is always in proportion to the necessity they are under of making that exertion... and, where competition is free, the rivalship of competitors, who are all endeavouring to justle one another out of employment, obliges every man to endeavour to execute his work with a certain degree of exactness... Rivalship and emulation render excellency, even in mean profes-sions, an object of ambition, and frequently occasion the very greatest exertions.

They've grown prematurely old as a result of their power. I think we're beginning to see the cracks in their monopoly with the rise of Ubuntu and the iPod-driven halo at Apple, which is helping to drive sales of Macs.

If all goes well, then Microsoft will be shaken by a market that has moved on from their now ossified practices. We'll likely first see losses on their 10-K reports, followed by a dropping share price. They'll be motivated to cut costs and become more agile by flattening their management structure (that is, firing off a bunch of middle managers). Ballmer may just get the ax, himself, as CEO's tend to get nixed when the losses become great enough. With that, they'll begin to be able to react more quickly and get new products out of the door with less red-tape.

The biggest problem with Microsoft, as I see it, is their culture. You can see it every time you run one of their products and every time anybody interacts with the business itself. I can't quite define the MS culture, perhaps somebody else here can. But it's driving the fact that they suck and that they don't even realize that fact. The culture of a company is largely driven by the senior management. If Ballmer ends up getting fired, or resigning, then we may begin to see a gradual shift in Microsoft's personality.

In the end, if they continue to follow in IBM's footsteps, they'll have diversified away from Windows and their other software into services, such as consulting, and will still be major players in the tech world, albeit in a lessened role.

[Blyiss]

Actually, the causes of the fall of Rome and the fall of the USSR are unrelated to each other and to MS.

Long and nice article. I won't argue because I myself live in the former USSR and I know the reason of its fall. Rome and USSR both fell because of a huge concentration of power they din't know where to apply to. It is not connected to Microsoft but I know a lot of people who are not satisfied by Microsoft products.

[DeanLinkous]

maybe it is *better*, heck maybe caviar really is better than cheez-whiz but cheez-wiz is what I like and so is linux

I miss nothing about windows. I feel no need to dualboot. I managed to have a good understanding of linux in half the time that it took in windows. Of course the closed nature of windows means you never understand more than half of it anyway.