Linux vs. Windows

[NiGHTMARE]

I've noticed some debate on this subject lately. All I will say is that both have advantages and disadvantages; Linux is much more stable than Windows, its open source, and it's not make by Microsoft. But it also has an extremely limited software range, and there are a lot of hardware manufacturers who don't officially support it.

Windows has the huge advantage that pretty much all PC software is designed for it, and that all the major hardware manufacturers release and update drivers for it. It's also a lot easier to use (particularly for newbies), but does tend to crash or lock-up a lot on certain systems (neither has happened to me since I got win '98 two years ago, except when caused by bad programming (the latest Napster for example).

The main thing, though: Linux is for sad, sad computer geeks =p

[Sir Fragsalot]

Don't forget that Linux is "open source" and that anyone can modify it. My Linux version can do some pretty strange things, thanks to me tinkering with it. It can now run most Windows programs, and I've written drivers for all of my hardware. Linux is also better than Windows in that it is a true 32-bit OS. If you look at the code for Windows, you can see that it is only a "patch" to add SOME 32-bit functions to a 16-bit OS. Windows has so much DOS code in it that it gets stupid. The advantage of a true 32-bit OS is that you can secure it much better and prevent crackers from busting up your system. Windows is easier to use, and can run more programs, though. I "enhanced" MY version of Windows: I decompiled it with a program called "Codemaster" and removed one of the evil things about Windows: that stupid registry. So, Windows can be modified, but technically it's illegal. But who cares?

[Lüt]

Right, but 98 has some very poor programming and takes about 4 times as long to boot (once Windows starts and the wallpaper is loaded) and runs very much slower than 95 in general. I had to reload 98 7 times in 6 months, I went back to 95 and it's been fine for the last year, and always was fine for the 3 years before (which I had to reload it once, and that was completely my fault.) See, the thing about 98 is that it starts out all well and good, and then after a certain elapsed time period (completely unrelated to any updates you may do) it suddenly crawls, and nothing but a format and reload will fix it.

[Jon]

NiGHTMARE said:

...and it's not make by Microsoft....It's also a lot easier to use (particularly for newbies)...Linux is for sad, sad computer geeks =p

I dont think that the manufacturer of a product should have any bearing on the product itself, I don't believe in computer ethics to THAT level.

I also disagree with the ease of use. Once you are used to dos/windows, linux is hard because its utterly different. But for newbies, where everything is new, I dont think linux is any harder to pick up than dos or windows are.

And which is worse- using an open-source free operating system, or taking part in a small community worshipping a 6 year old game? :P

[NiGHTMARE]

To Teppic and Sir Fragslot: Read the original post more carefully, I list open source as an advantage of linux (why would it be a disadvantage?) :)

[NiGHTMARE]

Lüt said:

Right, but 98 has some very poor programming and takes about 4 times as long to boot (once Windows starts and the wallpaper is loaded) and runs very much slower than 95 in general. I had to reload 98 7 times in 6 months, I went back to 95 and it's been fine for the last year, and always was fine for the 3 years before (which I had to reload it once, and that was completely my fault.) See, the thing about 98 is that it starts out all well and good, and then after a certain elapsed time period (completely unrelated to any updates you may do) it suddenly crawls, and nothing but a format and reload will fix it.

Heh, it was just the opposite for me. '95 used to crap up my system all the time and run really slowly, while '98 is the most stable version of Windows I've ever seen :)

About the only really annoying about win '98 is that it doesn't seem possible to prevent scandisk from running if you don't use it for awhile.

BTW, the wallpaper thing is simple; don't use it :) That's what I do anyway.

Oh, and about the speed thing, did you try defragmenting your hard-drive? I've had Win '98 for a couple of years now and my computer still runs fine. I suppose it could be something to do with FAT32 or something, I dunno.

[bitstate]

So far my experience with linux has been really bad, I'm a very experienced dos user so i figured that it redhat should work, I tried to install i twice but...

the first time my standard stb velocity, (sold in numerous copies and is old but very establised...) didn't work , had to specify my card as some other card to get it to work..

the second time my sb32 (now that *is* standard...) didn't work, reason: the plug'n play didn't detect it and the config wouldn't let me to specify its settings manually as it was unable to detect it.. (now why would i want to specify settings if it was allready detected....???)

Then... x-windows (gnome?, can't remember) turned out to be alot slower than win95 (my comp is a very low end p166 32mb ram, but then, win95 is rumored to be slow...)

As a contrast I got my win95 OSR2 (still use it ;o) to be very stable and is *working* so i see no use in using linux (although i'll probably try it again when i'm boored or something)..

but then.. i usually turn out to be wrong ;o)

[Guest David A]

NiGHTMARE said:

Heh, it was just the opposite for me. '95 used to crap up my system all the time and run really slowly, while '98 is the most stable version of Windows I've ever seen :)

About the only really annoying about win '98 is that it doesn't seem possible to prevent scandisk from running if you don't use it for awhile.

BTW, the wallpaper thing is simple; don't use it :) That's what I do anyway.

Oh, and about the speed thing, did you try defragmenting your hard-drive? I've had Win '98 for a couple of years now and my computer still runs fine. I suppose it could be something to do with FAT32 or something, I dunno.

These are the things I do to keep my Win98 installation slim and trim:

- I run LiteShell (not to be confused with LiteStep) instead of nasty old explorer.exe. Since it was made for 486's, it's a bit faster:)

- Defragment the HD every two weeks or so.

- Clean out the c:\ directory. The more junk you have in there, the slower it loads.

- Clean out useless DLL's from windows\system (I use a program for this). This trims your startup time significantly.

- Clean out the Registry. I use like 4 different programs to do this, because they all catch different things. This makes Windows significantly more stable, since a lot of programs don't remove all their junk when you uninstall them (^&$*&#*&$@!!!!!)


I usually never have any crashes, other than a web browser (I have like 5 installed:) chocking up on a webpage now and then.

[geekmarine]

bitstate said:

Speaking of DOS, I prefer DOS myself over both Windows and Linux. If only Windows weren't required for so many important things (Internet, CSDOOM, Age of Empires) I'd delete it in a second. Be gone, start menu. I want my C:\DOOM2\ DOS rules!!!

[myk]

Yeah, I always use DOS for doom(2).exe.

[myk]

Don't know much about linux myself, but Kilokahn put up a csdoom server in a linux box and I got better ping (by 100 or so) than in any other server i've ever been to (and it's not closer or anything). Hmm... I wonder how you got your Win98 not to crash. Mine does so every day, and it will freeze 80% of the time if I open a DOS window or run an alnost exclusively DOS prog, like DOOM). I guess there may be some patch or upgrade I missed...

[Lüt]

NiGHTMARE said:

Heh, it was just the opposite for me. '95 used to crap up my system all the time and run really slowly, while '98 is the most stable version of Windows I've ever seen :)

About the only really annoying about win '98 is that it doesn't seem possible to prevent scandisk from running if you don't use it for awhile.

BTW, the wallpaper thing is simple; don't use it :) That's what I do anyway.

Oh, and about the speed thing, did you try defragmenting your hard-drive? I've had Win '98 for a couple of years now and my computer still runs fine. I suppose it could be something to do with FAT32 or something, I dunno.

See, that's the thing... I DO defragment, I tweak it up completely, System Info editor, TweakUI and all... it just doesn't make a difference. It's like I say, I load all the drivers and tweak everything and then it's fine for, say, one month. Then all of a sudden, instead of starting up, it takes about 19 seconds to load just the taskbar, then another 6 for the desktop icons and then it just sits there loading for another 12 seconds. And not because of any upgrades, you just turn the computer on one day and it happens. I don't know why, but it's done that on 4 computers 11 different times so I just give up on it and go back to '95. About the wallpaper, what I meant is the point in the loading process when the Win95/98 splash screen disappears and the wallpaper appears. I wasn't saying that the wallpaper was the cause of the slowdown. Anyways, yeah, the second release of 95 (full version, not upgrade) is where it's at. I agree that the 95 upgrade and first edition is much buggier than 98. I am considering whether I want to waste any money on finding out how much the Millennium Edition either fixes or makes worse... if it wasn't for software support, I would be using Win3.11 and Dos6.22, the last stable thing Microsoft produced.

[locust]

I wouldn't say that... if I want a piece of software to perform a specific task, searched for, found, downloaded, installed and running for the first time in ten minutes, I find I'm *far* better off with Linux than Windows.

[Jon]

Sir Fragsalot said:

Don't forget that Linux is "open source" and that anyone can modify it. My Linux version can do some pretty strange things, thanks to me tinkering with it. It can now run most Windows programs, and I've written drivers for all of my hardware. Linux is also better than Windows in that it is a true 32-bit OS. If you look at the code for Windows, you can see that it is only a "patch" to add SOME 32-bit functions to a 16-bit OS. Windows has so much DOS code in it that it gets stupid. The advantage of a true 32-bit OS is that you can secure it much better and prevent crackers from busting up your system. Windows is easier to use, and can run more programs, though. I "enhanced" MY version of Windows: I decompiled it with a program called "Codemaster" and removed one of the evil things about Windows: that stupid registry. So, Windows can be modified, but technically it's illegal. But who cares?

How did you get basic programs to work without the registry? Almost all of the ones I can think of rely on it.

[TheProphet]

David A said:

These are the things I do to keep my Win98 installation slim and trim:

- I run LiteShell (not to be confused with LiteStep) instead of nasty old explorer.exe. Since it was made for 486's, it's a bit faster:)

- Defragment the HD every two weeks or so.

- Clean out the c:\ directory. The more junk you have in there, the slower it loads.

- Clean out useless DLL's from windows\system (I use a program for this). This trims your startup time significantly.

- Clean out the Registry. I use like 4 different programs to do this, because they all catch different things. This makes Windows significantly more stable, since a lot of programs don't remove all their junk when you uninstall them (^&$*&#*&$@!!!!!)


I usually never have any crashes, other than a web browser (I have like 5 installed:) chocking up on a webpage now and then.

This is exactly the reason why one should Linux. Once you have set it up, it will never need any more administration.

(Currently I only use Unix at Uni, because the hardware I have at home is not supported, but my next computer definately will be a 100% Linux machine.)

[aurikan]

bitstate said:

rofl ... "plug and play"