As much as I dislike participating in this, I will outline 5 things that Windows (2000/XP will be versions in question) can do that Linux can't.
1) Host a Microsoft Exchange Server, an invaluble reasource to any corporation who relies heavily on the Microsoft Office Suite.
2) Utilize advanced 3D accelerators at their full potential through DirectX, for the most part Linux is limited to OpenGL optimizations and is unable to use the built in DirectX optimizations.
3) Rely completely on the GUI without any command line dependancies. The X GUIs such as KDE and Gnome have come a long way in making Liux more user friendly, but high level vital functions still require the use of the command line (the terminal if X is running). Without any command line knowledge, Linux can still be used through KDE but it will basically be limited to being a word processor / web box.
4) Use a driver certification system, through the use of WHQL driver certification, drivers can be guarenteed to be stable in the OS they are certified for. This is very valuble for less skilled users, with that system in place Windows can be set to reject any non-WHQL drivers and prevent a less skilled user from installing faulty drivers.
5) Support the majority of hardware and software out on the market. This is a major plus for consumers, through all of the support Windows has throughout the hardware and software industries the users will be open to a much broader range of products that will work with their system.
And while I've completed my list, I would like to point out a few things in your list.
quote:
1. opening a (closed format) word/excel or other MS file
Windows itself does not open those files, the appropriate Microsoft Office application does. Through the use of Windows Emulation in an alternative OS, that suite can be installed on the system and those files can be viewed in the appropriate application.
quote:
2. Being treated like a total idiot.
The defaults in the OS are made to suit the majority of Windows users who are new to PCs and only have the OS because it came with their system, with the proper knowledge, those defaults can be changed drastically to suit more advanced users.
quote:
3. crashing my pc every 5 minutes
That point has absolutely no grounds, the only way a PC could crash every 5 minutes is if there was a malicious time-based script installed which was set to cause a fatal error approximately 5 minutes after explorer was loaded. Stability wise, I've found no problems with 2000 or XP, my secondary PC running WinXP Professional has been running for over two months and I haven't seen any drop in performance.
Now lets move on the the 5 points on Linux...
quote:
1. Be productive (no bloated, buggy, crash prone IDE to worry about)
Productivity all depends on what the user is used to and their level of skill and for those who feel IDE is crash prone, there is nothing stopping them from installing a SCSI controller.
quote:
2. Have translucent menu's (my KDE looks faaaar better then winxp)
Again, aesthetics depend solely on the user. Personally, I didn't find WinXP's default skin or classic skin to be very attractive so I dug up a remake of the Whistler skin and run that on all of my XP machines.
quote:
3. Should a program crash and lock up the windowing system I can just slide over to my other pc, kill the offending application and go on with my work.
An application crash can rarely take down 2000 or XP, the Windows Task manager can eliminate any down applications 9 out of 10 times without causing any instability in the OS.
quote:
4. The only BSOD I'll ever see is on the screensaver which comes with some distributions.
It's true that you'll never see a BSOD in any other OS, but that doesn't mean fatal errors don't happen in them, the BSOD just happens to be the most infamous and though be it annoying, I find the NT BSOD to be rather usefull since it points out the file that caused the error in the first place.
quote:
5. Being able to actually thouroughly debug programs I write because of the plethora of debug tools available for and built in the linux operating system, plus the fact that most libraries we use at work are either open source or has the source available, which enables me to find bugs faster by being able to tell what exactly happens when I do a function call in a library (in oposite of microsoft where you have to find out the hard way)
That one was correct... Linux is definately THE platform for programming.
Now, in closing I think I should clear a few things up on where my opinions stand. First, when I defend Windows, I am only defending the NT variations of it, Win9x was without a doubt a horrible OS, almost the the point of being unusable. Second, I do not hate Linux, it simply doesn't fit my needs for anything other than my HTTP/FTP/IRC server, I feel it's an excellent OS for most servers and for programming, it just leaves a lot to be desired in the feild of general desktop usability. And finally, Apple... Apple is a company I strongly dispise, they depend heavily on hype and aesthetics, neither of which matter in terms of real performance and as a company, they engage in some very childish mudslinging.
Well, that's my two cents...
[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Xenoran ]
