quote:
Originally posted by ShawnD1:
1. Easier to network than any other OS.
How is it any easier than OS X, that uses Rendezvous? And easier is such a relative description; give actual examples. Many of us consider Microsoft's networking wizards much more difficult to deal with than anything Linux has to offer.
Say I'm near an open wireless connection. In OS X my computer automatically joins and configures itself to use it, with no intervention on my part. No wizards; no steps. It just works, whether I just woke it from sleep or had it open for 2 hours.
The last time I used a Linux distribution I saw GUIs for configuring Samba, network adapters, etc. I'm not sure what would make networking in Windows radically easier.
quote:
2. Easier to get support when you need it. Linux users will yell at you to RTFM, and Mac users will turn your question into a list of reasons why you are still better off using a Mac instead of a PC.
Join a Windows support channel sometime, packed with individuals who are supposedly 'certified' to deal with its problems. If the problem isn't beyond the realm of a simple fix, they will either ignore you or suggest a reinstall (usually the later).
Linux users on the other hand will generally tell you what's wrong, and are actually able to identify what an error means (assuming you can't on your own -- since they're not that cryptic). After the problem has been diagnosed, they may expect you to have enough initiative to repair it on your own, and with Google that's not very difficult.
As far as Mac support is concerned, I've never faced what you describe. There's plenty of chat rooms, websites, and discussion boards with people who can usually solve your problem. Then again, my problems have always been minor, which says something about the OS itself.
quote:
3. Better driver support. Buy an ATI video card, benchmark it in Windows (with a game like RTCW), then benchmark it in Linux. You'll find that the game will run significantly slower in Linux.
This was addressed in my last post. The most popular OS will naturally have more support; that says nothing about the inherent quality of the OS itself, especially when certain manufactures refuse to release specifications for their product that would allow improved driver support to occur.
And besides, if one is a dedicated user of any alternative OS he or she is willing to check compatibility
before purchasing hardware. It's kind of like buying a transmission for a Chevy and expecting it to work fine in your Nissan (possibly a bad analogy, I'm not a car person).
quote:
4. The Windows swap file is part of the same partition as your data which means the swapfile's size can be changed on the fly. Linux's swap file is a different partition all together, so if you want to increase the size of the swap file, you have to delete the swap partition as well as a data partition.
You do realize Linux can be configured to use a swap file as well don't you? I'd imagine it might take a slight performance hit though, just as Windows does for
not implementing a swap partition.
And you do realize swap space can be resized with a partitioning utility right?
OS X has your beloved swap file by the way, and it can also be configured to use a swap partition if one desires.
quote:
5. Windows has the settings in a more logical location. For example, if I want to change the resolution of my monitor in Windows, I can do it by right clicking on the desktop, click on properties, then go to the settings tab. In Mandrake 8.0 with KDE, you can't change the resolution by clicking the right or middle mouse buttons on the desktop; you have to go into the mandrake control panel.
Well, I'm not sure what's illogical about having display settings in the control panel. In OS X there's a nice little icon in my menu bar that brings up a pull-down menu letting me select the resolution on all of the attached displays, along with some other options. You seem to be addressing learned connivence more than logic. A logical person wanting to change his/her display settings is going to look in a control panel before right clicking and searching contextual menus. Or in the case of OS X -- it's blatantly obvious without doing either.
quote:
6. Windows users don't need to run around downloading dependencies just so they can compile a program they want to use. Try compiling WINE on Mandrake 8.0 and you'll see what a nightmare dependencies can be.
I tend to agree here, which is one reason I'm not using Linux as a desktop OS. However, why do you keep referencing a two-year old Linux distribution (Mandrake 8?) It's at 10 now you know.
quote:
7. Games. Having to emulate Windows in Linux just to play a DirectX based game is ridiculous.
Maybe you should be upset at the game developers who chose to use proprietary tools, not an OS that cannot natively support them. Do you complain that your Gamecube can't play Xbox games?
quote:
8. I'm not sure if this is still true, but in the past Linux would have problems trying to use integrated hardware. Windows doesn't have problems with integrated hardware.
I'm assuming by integrated hardware you mean stuff like onboard sound cards and video? See answer to #3.
quote:
9. In Windows, everything is GUI. In Linux, most things are still console. Having to compile every piece of software is all console. Changing user passwords is console. Changing user access to files and folders is console . . . In Windows, if you don't know what you are doing, you can still poke around in the GUI to try to accomplish something. In the Linux console, you either know it or you don't.
Granted it's been 2 years since I've used Linux as my desktop OS, I vividly remember there being GUI tools to accomplish everything you mention (adding users, file permissions, etc). I'm only assuming that has improved.
And in Linux if you don't know what you're doing there's
man, which tends to tell me more than I need to know. There's nothing stopping you from poking around in console.
Then again, I'm an OS X user -- so I can accomplish things either way.
quote:
10. Windows can uninstall things. In Linux, you can only uninstall things that were installed through RPM. Programs installed by compiling a source cannot be uninstalled unless you just happen to save the source, but then again, who saves the source to every program they compile??
Uninstalling in Windows would be nice -- if it actually uninstalled
everything. That means cleaning up my registry, and not leaving files or empty folders behind. Not to mention those instances where the uninstaller malfunctions, and ends up creating more problems. Or how about those wonderful spyware apps I clean off my friend's computers, that require one to be on-line to uninstall?
In OS X I drag an app to the trash -- bam, it's uninstalled.
