Ethan Hunt Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Before I post my question let me just say that I hope that this thread will not become a windows flame thread... I'm interested in something else here so please try to give me ur POV on the matter... Here's the thing: Every1 is saying that win sux and linux and/or mac is better and stuff. Like they have no viruses, they never (hardly ever) crash and stuff like that.... Will win crash as much if we just install (an original updated patched service packed win) and don't install anything on it. I mean there are 100000 guys that have pirated copies of win that have been god knows where :) and install like a million cracked and hacked programs / mods / and a million more mostly "hacked" applications and run everything in sys tray and... U see where I'm going with this? I mean let me be honest here and say the following... I've never used a mac (long enough) to actually try it but I have used linux here and there and I have never installed anything on it that didn't come with the "original" package... So let's say I have a win that does not have any "addons" of any kind.. and no viruses or hacks and it's properly patched... Do u think that it will STILL be as bad and as crashable as every1 is saying it is? Just because every virus and exploit known to mankind is made targeting win doesn't necesserily make it a bad OS does it? Please tell me why are linux and mac so better than win so I can finally get this thing in my mind cuz until now all (ok most) of the things I hear are win crashes and win has viruses. Of course it will have them. The ratio win/linux viruses is 1000000/1 :D I hope I didn't make this as complicated as it seems to me, so if every1 understood me please reply, if not I'll post again :D Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinmaRyuu Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Honestly i don't have nearly the problem with windows as a lot of people do. Sure it has issues but as long as you stay patched and secure things seem to go alright. It's just common sense in not installing ever pile of code out there and leaving your system wide open with no protection that your going to have problems. That being said i do prefer Mac on a daily basis just because that is what i like but in the end all 3 platforms have there merit and abilities. People who shun one for another are not using there tools right. A computer is a tool and you need to use the right tool for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flaxcrack Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I voted for Windows...as it is the operating system that keeps me employed! :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 To be honest, Windows XP is the first OS out of redmond that seems to be worth its salt in terms of reliability. Anything they had out before that would need a miracle to sustain more than a week of regular usage before showing signs of trouble. The main problem facing MS these days is the lack of incentive to switch to Vista. With all previous versions there was always something funky that would break in due time, and you hoped the next version would take care of that. XP was and still is good enough for most people. The main selling point in the commercials that I've seen is that it's simply prettier. Would you shell out the money they want for Vista just to get a prettier desktop? For me persionally, I just love UNIX. The sheer power of the commandline, the fact that you can script just about anything, and the fact that just about any tool has at least 3 equivalent programs, at least one of which doing whatever it is you need. But I wouldn't DREAM of telling people who've grown accustomed to Windows to switch to UNIX. They would need to be aware of too much technical stuff to make it worth their while. All those OSS evangelists should wake up, accept that what they consider simple other people will find unbearably hard, and the best way to promote OSS software / stick it to Microsoft is to promote the OSS applicatios like Open Office, Firefox, Apache, PostgreSQL and/or MySQL (if you're desperate) and its brethren. Once people have grown accustomed to using non-MS software, switching over their desktop shell or even underlying OS will be a whole lot easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_tom Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Yeah, in all fairness windows isn't as bad as they say, i'm using it now 'cos my X server is down and vi is trying to make me go on a killing spree. Its very good for games and applications.It just lacks the layerd build and fall backs of linux, no swiching to another term or simply killing the desktop when it crashes. and its just so damn boring. If you want to use your applications windows is fine, if you want to use your computer use a *nix. I'm with Cooper on this one, don't use a *nix if you want to look cool or hate windows, use it if you want to learn. In terms of stability, a well maintained Windows system is just a stable as a good *nix system and a badly maintained *nix system is far more unstable than a even the worst windows systems. However a well maintained *nix box will beat windows in uptime and (depending on the task) speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unasoto Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I voted windows and Cooper is right there no reason to switch from XP to Vista I have 2 XP machines and I'm not going to upgrade them... but thats not how micr$loth makes $$ I will get Vista when I buy a new computer. my laptop is dual boot with debian so that I can learn it. :) the only ones who might think about upgradeing to Vista are the dual core machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TehHacks Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I vote for *nix, I'm usually a Linux guy (Debian mostly), however recently i have been using FreeBSD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 It just lacks the layerd build and fall backs of linux, no swiching to another term or simply killing the desktop when it crashes.. For Windows XP Kill "EXPLORER.EXE" in task manager and then use task manager to start "EXPLORER" and your desktop will reload. You will need to restart any running apps, like 3rd party anti-virus or firewall software though, because will sometimes not catch the refresh. I think in most NT builds you can do this now, because the desktop shell runs like any program that may crash, and the rest of the system will keep running, even when it seems to be locked or CPU is at 100%. I use to do this when internet explorer would freeze and nothing on my desktop can be clicked, but rarely seems to happen to me anymore. XP is pretty stable as long as you have a good firewall and anti-virus, and problems only seem to be when I am online on a website, so switching browsers usually fixes any problems with lockups or crashes. Windows 98 and below sadly are not so easily fixed when this happens. I have tried Mac's and a few differnet Linux distros. Peronally I like Windows XP, but if I had to switch, I would probably go with Fedora Core 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.