Originally Posted by pauldovi
Have you ever heard the saying, "You get what you pay for". This applies with software too. Open Office is not equivalent to MS Office. Perhaps if your use of the software is limited it may seem that way but if you use MS Office for business and for important documents it is not difficult to see the different. MS Office is superior to Open Office in so many ways.
Windows is not expensive. The most basic version typically costs you $50 on a new computer. That is dirt cheap. Yes it is bloated, but with $500GB HDDs for $75 I don't think to many people care these days. Security on Windows has been good since XP SP2. Security on Vista is excellent. Most of all Windows is easy to use, has excellent "Help" documentation, and it very stable.
Linux is challenging to use. Its installation process is much more complicated than Windows. Installing software is much more complicated than Windows. And I think the world thing of all is that all the software on Linux has strange names, "KDE, GNOME, XFCE, YaST, Xen" which are not intiuitive and quite frankly a bit turn off to every average user I have introduced to Linux.
Linux is not a good desktop OS. Perhaps maybe in a highly limited application like ASUS's 5 second boot OS. But not for a general purpose OS.
I'm sorry, but you didn't give an example there. Give me a feature you use
that OpenOffice.org cannot provide. I'm sure they exist, but for me, and everyone I know, OpenOffice.org does more than enough. I have never found a feature in M$ Office that I have not found in OO.O.
"You Get What You Pay For" simply doesn't apply to FOSS. If you honestly believe that you are a fool. Say you buy Serif graphics software for Â£10, you are saying that is better than the GIMP? Please. It doesn't apply and you know it.
Not expensive? I'm sorry, but the base version of Windows is a lot worse than Ubuntu, so you saying that is a joke, and also, $50 is more than Â£0. Â£25 is, to me, something I'd rather not throw away.
Bloated effects the performance of the system, not just how much hard disc space you use.
Security is good? I'm sorry, Windows is insecure. Vista is a little more secure, with UAC, but it doesn't account for everything (see below for more on UAC, I don't want to go into it twice). Ubuntu has masses of help online and documentations provided with it. It's rediculously easy to use, as much so as Windows. The only reasons some people might find it 'harder' is because it is different.
More difficult to install? Please. I have done loads of Ubuntu installs and loads of Windows installs. Ubuntu is easier. Not only does the live-cd make it easier, but it is a much nicer install in general. The windows partitioning tool is hell to make work (How many times have I and my friends seen 'Windows cannot find a suitible partition', despite the fact there is an NTFS partition that it made 5 seconds ago).
Your next one is laughable. Harder to install software? Package managers make installing software so easy it's nigh impossible to do wrong. There is no way you can say it's harder to install software under Linux. Open package manager, search for what you want, click install, hit apply, done. The only thing under windows that is anywhere close in ease-of-use is Steam.
As to the names, you don't even need to care. In Ubuntu software is mostly called 'Movie Player' 'Text Editor' etc... in the menus, you don't even see the names.
Linux is nigh on perfect
as a all-purpose OS, far more than Windows is. The only area Windows beats it in is where developers of hardware or software only support Windows because Microsoft have consumer lock-in. That's it.
Originally Posted by Licht
I want to raise a few points here.
As most people buy prebuilt PC from manufacturers who have OEM copies of Windows at discounts Windows is not expensive, in minor or major concerns, to most people. They don't even know they are paying for an OS, they think it is part of the PC. So really man, expensive? I couldn't care less about Window's expense, $100 for an OS is plenty cheap for me. (Vista Home Premium 64bit OEM.) And if you are going to mention retail, i want to mention you can use that on any number of PC, so have at it and start installing ASAP. When you realize that the cost of retail Vista is insignificant.
By bloated i think you mean RAM usage and HDD usage. Most people get PC coming with 500GB of HDD space around here. I don't know about you guys when when i have that much i couldn't care less about Windows using up space even if it was 50GB used. As for RAM Superfetch takes the lot of it. If i start a game (which causes SuperFetch to stop) and run up a whole mess of RAM usage then exit, i can find Vista using 2xxMB of RAM, very similar to Linux. Additionally SuperFetch yields large performance increases for desktop. Once people realize that before SuperFetch their RAM was wasted, after what they paid for is actually getting put to use when the PC isn't doing something intensive, then i am sure they can appreciate it like i do.
Lacks features.... i need examples to even understand where you are coming from for this one.
Lacks security, once a Linux guy told me about Linux' equivelant of UAC. He told me because of this system it was virtually impossible to hack Linux, although now i know better, Windows now has a similar (although be it a lot more strict) system for security. In addition to other measures within the OS itself and regular updates from the Microsoft team. Often we hear of security threats in the web news, i dofor Linux as Windows. The OS are very close in security from what i have seen. I won't say UAC or Linux' system are perfect, i won't say either is unhackable or easily hackable, but i will say they are close wherever they are. And bring up the fact it is usually (like 95% of the time, estimated) not the OS that gets hacked, it is an application developed by a 3rd party that has a vulnerability to be exploited.
Do tell about this host of issues.
I admit the cost of Windows is largely invisible to the user, that, on the other hand, does not mean it is not there. And besides, we are talking on an overclocking forum where people are building there own rigs, and therefore (should) be buying a copy, at a large pricen't know about you guys but i have seen about the same amount . maybe you don't think it is much, but it's still something, it's still money, and I, personally, would rather spend as little as possible, when I don't need to.
And yes you are right, SuperFetch means that, Like Linux, 99% of your RAM should be used most of the time, which makes complete sense, but that doesn't mean Vista is not heavy. SuperFetch does not account for all of that RAM, and Vista is heavier on RAM than most Linux distros, including Ubuntu. That is true.
Lacking features, well, Package Managers, a host of software that comes by default, skins/themes, customisable panels, Windows Explorer doesn't hold a candle to Nautilus/Dolphin/Konqueror, etc... Notepad compared to Gedit/Kate, paint to the GIMP. IE as opposed to Firefox. Windows lacks a lot of stuff off the bat, and comes with weak (sometimes non-existant) software.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong about security. Linux is more secure. UAC is a good step by M$, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the Linux privalages system.
UAC stops software from being able to destroy your system (or do something legitimate) unless you tell it the software can. Now, this is a nice step. The problem is, loads of Windows software asks the user to give them privalages, because they are badly written, this means that the user will give the privalages to any app, even if it shouldn't need it, because apps often need it to function. Under Linux, only stuff which obviously needs root privalages asks for permissions, meaning it's obvious when software is asking for permissions it does not need, and therfore is attempting to be maliscious. FOSS software also, consistently, tends to have patches for security vulnerabilities released a lot faster than closed source software. There are a host of other reasons, but I've already spent far too long writing up this, so I won't go into more detail.
You could say, but wait, that's the 3rd party dev's fault, you can't blame that on the OS. But that is being the ultimate hypocrit.
Yes, it's true, a lot of M$'s (although not, by any means, the majority) security problems are caused by third party devs. However the OS has to give the 3rd party software privalages in the first place. But the main thing here, is that we do judge OSes based on third party software. The main things people hold against Linux are software/games support and driver support. That is not the fault of the OS itself. However, they are valid reasons why you may not want to run the OS in cirtain circumstances, I don't deny that. But this also applies to Windows.
The fact remains, Windows is less secure than Linux.