| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Linux vs. Windows: The Rematch | |
|
||
| Time: 02:14 EST/07:14 GMT | News Source: PC World | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
You might be pretty happy with Windows XP. But Windows continues to suffer from more than its share of drawbacks: From the newer operating system's incompatibility with older software to Microsoft's well-known security problems, Windows still engenders a fair amount of user aggravation. Windows XP also subjects its users to the indignity of the Microsoft Product Activation service: You might have to ask Microsoft for a new key if you upgrade more than one or two major components. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 176 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:28:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 2:45:51 AM |
| I've yet the not be able to run something on Windows XP. I don't take issue with the security issues, because I realize that to be secure, I'd have to stop using a computer. The competition doesn't have a comparitively better track record than does Windows XP. I have no amount of aggravation with respect to Product Activation. Indeed, I am well pleased with Windows XP. |
| #2 By 10782 (195.169.94.30) at 10/2/2002 3:23:25 AM |
|
And please notice that Linux can also greatly suffer from compatability issues: I once wanted to update to the latest version of bind on an 'old' red hat distribution but I couldn't compile because the latest libraries were needed. I know that a true C wizzard would probably get it to work but for me its just an incompatible piece of software. And pre compiled binaries can also give a lot of these 'library' issues.
Sofar, I've never had these kind of problems with Windows NT 3.5 and higher. Wanne. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 4:28:37 AM |
|
From the article:
"...Linux represents the pinnacle of the customizable operating system... Linux also provides superior security compared to Windows systems, and works on more hardware, from 486 processors to the latest Pentium 4s....Linux is more a set of infinitely rearrangeable operating system building blocks than a unified OS." Customizable? Meaning in terms of UI? I guess someone shoul tell that to Stardock? Superior security? Hmm the list of security vulnerabilities on Linux distros seems to indicate this is also not accurate. Works on more hardware? Hmm how many devices have Linux drivers? How well does USB work with Linux? USB 2.0? 1394? Infinitely rearrangeable? More reaarrangeable than what? A public method exposed in an API is an public method exposed in an API. Unified or not (what does that mean anyway?) an API is available to be used in any app on a given platform, so I'd say that any platform within the context of the API has infinitly rearangable building blocks. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 5:22:42 AM |
| FYI AFAIK there is no such product as "Windozs". There is a company that has been around for a while called Microsoft. Microsoft writes an operating system called Windows. The current desktop version of Windows is called Microsoft Windows XP. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 5:47:15 AM |
|
No offense was intended. There are many who misspell "Windows" to be derogatory. Now at least, all site visitors know that you, like I, didn't not intend any disrespect.
Welcome to the site! |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 6:15:50 AM |
|
"Virus writers haven't made Linux a major target--yet."
Hmm, users haven't made Linux a target yet either. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 6:17:31 AM |
|
"One OS fits all: Linux, in one form or another, will run on everything from a 486 doorstop with 8MB of RAM (try that with Windows XP) to clusters of high-speed servers. It won't be the same version of Linux running the same applications, but Linux is good at fitting in where Microsoft leaves machines behind with Windows' ever-increasing minimum system requirements."
Um, Windows in one form or other runs on those hardware platforms too. Duh! |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 6:21:47 AM |
| Which 10 apps are they? |
| #9 By 7390 (165.247.31.134) at 10/2/2002 6:39:36 AM |
| #11 Doggin, we are waiting. Please enlighten us. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 7:26:15 AM |
| I can't think of a good reason that Windows XP should run DOS applications. Anyone running Windows XP should expect that DOS apps won't work. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 8:21:02 AM |
|
east, what independent group can verify your claims?
If you check TPC you'll discover that for databases, SQL Server 2000 running on Windows 2000 has top marks. I somehow doubt that any comparable database vendor running on a Linux (or any other platform) is going to touch that. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 8:29:27 AM |
|
When Windows 2000 was in beta and when SQL Server was in beta there were still 3rd parties that benchmarked them. If you are so confident that the 2.6 kernel is sooo fast, then surely there is a 3rd party somewhere that can verifiy your claim based on the beta of the 2.6 kernel.
Besides that, what does it mean that it will be the fastest OS out there? Fastest at doing what? Be specific and provide references. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 8:31:35 AM |
| I don't have any problem understanding English, BTW. I do have trouble believing a statement with no supporting evidence. Further more such a statement as "fastest OS" is extremely broad. I'd rather think that it would depend on what software it was running to compare performance. Further, it is rather difficult to do direct compares accroos platforms. Perhaps "fastest Linux OS" would be more accurate. |
| #14 By 1896 (208.61.158.5) at 10/2/2002 8:33:00 AM |
| Bottom line this is another example of a "journalist" writing about something he does not know nothing about. XP is extremely stable, it is relatively secure, again the only 100% secure system is one with the power cord unplugged. I don't see the big deal about WPA; I format n reinstall OSes and other programs very often and I never had a problem with it. Yes sometimes you have to call MS but when last week I lost my car keys, in order to get a new set of keys and reprogram the alarm I had to show an ID to match it against BMW records so I don' t see the big deal of WPA. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 8:35:49 AM |
| That's a really good point, Fritzly. I'd never thought of replacement car keys. |
| #16 By 4209 (64.175.184.131) at 10/2/2002 8:54:48 AM |
| I have not found any newer apps that do not work with XP. I also have used both XP and Linux and find the Windows OS's to be much better to maintain and run on any system. Drivers are plentiful and hardware is plentiful as well as easy to install. Double-click Setup or install the CD in the drive and look I am installing drivers... Not a pain in the butt like Linux. And as for #11, I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find dozens of apps that will not run on Linux, but they would have been written for Windows and the ones that I use everyday and all my users use everyday. If you Linux zealots want it to become a viable desktop OS, then you need to make it as easy to use as Windows, meaning I need to be able to easily install hardware drivers and software without needing to go on a newsgroup and ask first. I am an Admin and I do not like it, what makes you think my users or any other average users that are used to the ease of use as Windows, switch over to your beloved Linux. Not gonna happen until Joe Blow can go buy a copy at his local Best Buy or Circuit City and pop that disk in the computer and let her rip. They when he buys a new video card he wants a pop-up window asking him for the drivers when he restarts the computer, better yet Windows XP already has most of the drivers in his database so he may not even need to have a disk. If he wants new drivers he want to be able to go online and download the latest and greatest and then when done downloading hit the Open button on the dialog box and answer a couple of question and hit Finish. When Linux is that easy you will see it pick up some market share. Until then Joe User is not gonna touch it and its market share will stay where it is for the desktop segment. |
| #17 By 6859 (204.71.100.216) at 10/2/2002 9:10:17 AM |
|
“Linux also provides superior security compared to Windows systems, and works on more hardware, from 486 processors to the latest Pentium 4s.”
Not entirely true. While Linux does allow for greater customization and tighter control out of the box, Windows and Linux can compete on identical terms as far as security is concerned if you know what you’re doing; and as for Linux running on a 486 system, that is only true if you use older Linux kernels. The newer 2.4.x kernels are not ancient hardware happy. “Linux is arguably far more secure than Windows--something of concern to PC users everywhere.” Isn’t that what I just said? Seems to contradict himself awfully quickly. “Linux users also proudly claim that, to date, not a single virus outbreak has ever targeted this operating system.” Lie. Slapper is out, and remember the first Linux only virus called Bliss?… Guess not. “The downside: Thousands more Windows apps are still incompatible with Wine, and getting the compatible ones running presents a challenge even to tech-savvy users.” I’ve tried. Frankly calling getting WINE to work merely a ‘challenge’ is an extreme understatement. WINE is not an acceptable solution to anyone with half a brain. “The abundance of free software on disc, which saves a lot of download time, is a unique feature of SuSE's boxed set.” And yet when Microsoft bundles software the world complains…free or not this is the exact same thing. Is it any different if it’s on a different CD even in the same box? If so then Microsoft should look into that tactic. “Windows XP Home, on the other hand, makes a security blunder in the name of convenience: All users get privileges equivalent to Linux's root account. On this point, Linux is clearly superior.” That’s the reason everyone calls Windows XP Home Edition an abomination. It’s also the reason anyone with half a brain will grab Windows XP Professional. Oh, and this same "blunder" is being done by Lindows, so this is not a Windows only flaw. “One of the nice things about Windows is how it makes connecting to networked printers easy. Linux emulates this feature using software called Samba, which makes the process almost as simple.” More crack? SAMBA is not easy or simple. It never will be. It’s a kludge designed for interoperability. It’s not a solution. “If you need to use a product that has no Linux support, it will be a lot easier just to stick with Windows--or at the most, to run a dual-boot system--than to switch over to Linux exclusively.” Or you could save the hassle and ignore Linux entirely… The whole section in this article called “Five Things We Hate About Linux” is all true. The whole section in this article called “Five Things We Love About Linux” is not entirely true, some are and some aren’t. “However, Linux has always natively supported multiple users and concurrent log-ins.” Naturally, considering Linux is a cheap UNIX hack, that’s to be expected. “Windows offers near one-stop shopping in its Control Panel, but poor documentation hampers its powerful command-line tools.” Poor documentation? Oh, you mean like the many available technical reference manuals that have that information in plain English? Ever gone to a good bookstore with a well stocked computer reference section? Guess not… All in all, I have to give this article a really low score. Mainly for inaccuracies, and some for outright lies (the Linux crowd calls that “FUD”). Score another victory for Windows, as this rematch was poorly executed. This post was edited by Cthulhu on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 10:25. |
| #18 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 9:21:35 AM |
| Cthulhu, thanks for the laugh to get my morning started. With such a low install base, I am really getting tired of Linux articles. If the prophecies come true, let's have the articles in 10 years when Linux actually has some achievements that it can trumpet about. Until then, who reall cares? A few hundred thousound desktops use it out of hundreds of millions of Windows PC desktops. I'm rather disinterested in Mr. Torvalds's CS project. |
| #19 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/2/2002 10:26:14 AM |
|
Redhat: 68
Microsoft: 53 Linux has greater security? since when? I think what's interesting about this article is that they could have written this six years ago, and it would have said the same thing. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 10:29:49 AM |
| Did I say I have more coding skill than Linus? No. He certainly isn't the only kernel level developer in the world though, so it isn't like I couldn't be on par with him. I'm not a low level OS developer. I'm a mid level application developer, in case you were interested. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 10:30:32 AM |
| One dfference, soda, they couldn't have mentioned product activation back then. |
| #22 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 10/2/2002 10:39:23 AM |
|
Red Hat's TOTAL REVENUE for the first half of 2002 was a laughable $30M.
A $30M company deserves little or no press. They ARE NOT affecting the market, obviously. These tech writers just have nothing else to write about. And whoever thought Linux was FREE, needs to do a little research. Do you realize v8 is $150. Thats no cheaper than XP. And XP is awesome, btw. |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 10:59:37 AM |
| moore, you can still download RH8 for free. As far as I can see nothing has changed in this regard. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 11:47:27 AM |
|
A close race? Your experience is different from mine.
Another thing to consider is server applications, custom applications that is. It is dramatically easier to code for a Windows server than it is for a Linux server. |
| #25 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 10/2/2002 12:05:44 PM |
|
Ok... as far as security goes:
Linux is *not* more secure than Windows in regards to the number of exploits that are exposed over time. As Soda pointed out, Linux currently has a great number of exploits than Windows so far this year. Linux *is* more secure in regards to the speediness of patches. The Linux community responds to exploits significantly faster (in most cases) than Microsoft does. This results in a more secure OS when Administrators keep up with their patches. BUT, we must ask ourselves WHY they respond faster. I posit two reasons: 1.) Regression testing doesn't really exist in the Linux world -- nor does it really need to. With such an insignificant install base the danger is much less. 2.) The Linux / open source community *is* more efficient in patching *found* holes. Once it's known, it is a matter of hours or days until it's patched by one or more sources. One thing to note is that I did not say they are more efficient in finding holes. Most holes aren't found by the open source community, but are instead found by the same people who find Windows holes - security companies. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 176 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:28:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
