OK. I rarely get into such endless and passionate discussions.

However, having "USED" Linux for the past 2 years (emphasis on past-tense, I now dual-boot but rarely use Linux), I would like to state my view and receive feedback.

Why I do not use Linux:

#1. Wireless card is difficult to set up (not plug&play) (WG311v2)
#2. Video card performance is significantly degraded (even when using the NVIDIA drivers) (GeForce 6100)
#3. Lack of sufficient specialized and quality applications. (Yes I know that I could use GIMP and BLENDER)
#4. Lack of quality games (Yes I know that there are some very good games for Linux)

Why I will not be using Vista:

#1. Way out of my budget. I could never shell out so much money.
#2. Concern for my privacy. (Microsoft cripples the user's control over his/her system. ie. Palladium)
#3. I see no significant advantage in using Vista over using XP.(extra features look like fancy gimmicks)

Why I use Windows XP:

#1. Because I am not ready to use Linux until my needs are met. (see "Why I do not use Linux")

Why I dislike using Windows XP:

#1. Administration and Maintenance are time consuming and become an annoyance. (need for frequent Defrag and AntiVirus)
#2. I do not have as much control over my system as I would like to have(unable to uninstall certain things, cannot access innermost command line.)
#3. System is bloated (performance is degraded because of this)
#4. System is unstable (system crashes frequently and must be completely shut down in every serious case of malfunction as opposed to simply ending an X session or doing init 2)
Note that I may not have covered all issues regarding each operating system. I have simply highlighted those issues over which I had major concerns. I truly look forward to using the perfect OS. I do not care who makes it. If MS makes it good for them. However, the way things appear, it seems as if the perfect or near perfect OS may materialize from the FOSS community sooner than it will from MS or other solely proprietary vendors.

What I tell people about Windows:

I use windows XP. There are programs that I use, that have no equivalent in other operating Systems. I enjoy many of the features that Windows is shipped with. However, There are aspects of the OS that greatly annoy me. I fear for my computers welfare. I do not think that my computer's potential is being fulfilled.

What I tell people about Linux:

Linux is better for your hardware. If properly engineered it can let you fully exploit the resources at your disposal. Linux is less likely to contract viruses and Malware. You have more control over your systems configuration when using Linux. However, it can be a pain to get hardware properly configured. Some distribution s lack visual appeal. You may quickly find that your favorite program is unsupported and that there is no practical equivalent.
Try Linux in two years.

11 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by TKS

aw thats sad linux = greatness. my ubuntu with xgl on gnome and kxdocker on kde buts any vista stuff to shame and can shut up a pompous mac prick


fragmented_user, I think your comments are exceptionally well-balanced. I might submit that maybe 2 years could be too long a time frame, but you're spot-on with every one of your comments.

If we took the discussion on a sheer visual-appeal basis, some Linux configs could hold their own with Vista, or the Mac OS. But, how far does that get you, really? Once you're through "OOOHing" and "AHHing" over the transparency effects, or the way the windows scroll, you still should be able to use the PC.

I don't care what the UI is, honestly. I'd still be using Windows 98 if it were more secure or stable. When I use Linux, I use the most barebones window manager I can get my mouse pointer on. I feel those things can get in the way of productivity, in the long run.

I might be able to be more productive than the average user in Linux. But, I'm not a gamer, so I couldn't speak authoritatively on that at all. I'll relate my oft-repeated phrase: Use what works for you-- outside of that, you're wasting your time trying to get a system to do something that you might not be so well-trained on. Take some time to learn a system if you want, get better at it, but don't waste your time on something that's not doing the job when you may have access to a more effective tool. After all, that's what a computer is-- a TOOL.


fragmented_user, you have written something that easily balances a thin line -- Which OS is the best. While I have been using Windows since 1999 and am exceptionally good at it, it still isn't the best OS out there. There are tons of bugs, application/driver incompatibilities and the excessive bloat. Take Windows Media Player for example. It's a versatile Media Player, but it lacks the most popular codecs (Xvid, DivX etc). After the installation of a driver pack, it plays most files, but it is still bloated, with a memory footprint of 10-15 megs on launch. Compare the scenario using Mplayer on Linux. It too takes some time to load (I'm very finicky. Load time of over 3 seconds annoys me no end). But it plays most poplular formats after installation. However, it is extremely buggy and crash prone.

So where does this leave the end user? That depends on what he's willing to put up with -- a buggy app or a bloated app. Not very appealing options. I suppose the best thing to do is to deal with the situation as best as you can until you find the perfect app. here, perfect is a relative term. Use what suits your purpose best and don't go around yelling 'Windows is better than Linux' or 'Mac rules'. The only 'best' OS out there is the one you're most comfortable with and the one that gets your job done. Like alc6379 said, a computer is a tool. Let it be that, and not become an object of controversies.


I know it's not a practical alternative for someone with a PC in need of an OS, but for new buyers, perhaps a mac? Mac OS X has unix under the hood power, you can recompile nearly all open source *nix apps, and there are still real commercial suites for it such as MS Office and Adobe Photoshop CS 2.


thanks great comparison i want to move to linux too but it's a little hard to start it unlike winxp..
btw the best Os ever is basic Dos system ^^


Don't believe every anti-Microsoft rant you read online, most are based on either blatant lies, gross misunderstandings, incomplete data leading to massive exagerations, or a combination of the above.

You WILL use Vista at some stage. XP support won't last forever, and sooner or later you're going to be working at a company using Vista even if you yourself for whatever reason decided not to purchase it (mind that most people using XP at home didn't purchase it either, they got a "backup copy" from a friend's downloaded copy).


I'd say you're a bit off with wireless. Recent kernel changes and the implementation of ndiswrapper have drastically improved the wireless realm.

Also, it's important to note that video card performance is lower mainly because games ARE MADE to run on Microsoft. The only corrective action would be to use Cedega which tries to implement DirectX in a Linux world. Otherwise, everyone is in the same boat. I have found OpenGL games to be SUBSTANTIALLY faster in Linux than in windows though.:eek:

Overall, I'd say that #2 and #4 of why you don't use Linux are pretty much the same reason I addressed above. Manufacturers don't give two damns about making games for Linux and they won't until people move across to that platform in droves. Of course, you can't get people to move in droves if there aren't games. It's a Catch22.

#3 is the only valid reason I can see for this entire blog. Mainly because it is based on your opinion. #1 is moot becuase wireless is supported much much better recently with kernel improvements tools like ndiswrapper (Try PCLinuxOS to get it working easily).

You were right on Vista though...I won't be upgrading either :D

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.