I am currently running windows and was wondering what the advantages of running linux would be and what i would be able to do with it that i cant with windows.


10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Fest3er

depends on what you want to do. Linux doesnt suit some people, for some people it is great

what are your requirements?


Windows can play games, Linux really can't (for the most part).

There are free and open source alternatives to most of your Windows applications, and if you're dead set on a Windows application, you can use a nice Linux application called Wine to run it.

As jbennet said, Linux isn't for some people. If you like free stuff, go with it. But if you need a specific application, or hardware support, like MIDI controllers, media devices, etc. etc., Linux isn't the greatest there. However, if you're really against the whole Vista thing (like I am), go with it. It has a bundle of themes and window managers (different graphical environments, so basically very many different looks for your Linux environment) for you to choose between.

Linux is fast, and has daily updates. It is community driven, and bugs are almost always patched immediately after being reported.

If you do go the Linux route, I suggest you go with Ubuntu Linux to start. It's the most like Windows and can give you an easy slope to switch between Windows and Linux.


Linux is very good for most programming, so long as you arent using the microsoft technologies.

You can use some Microsoft technologies if you use Mono, as long as you don't rely on the Forms API of Windows.


Vs is awesome for RAD of GUI apps. Just last week i whipped up an awesome VB.NET app for a shop (EpoS system covering everything apart from cash drawers/credit cards) in under 2 hours.


Yeah, but what more can you do besides basic graphical Windows applications? It doesn't even make a native EXE. You need to install the .NET Framework for VB.NET.

I really dislike the whole .NET thing in entirety. I used to like Visual Basic 6 a whole lot, but I left that "language" for Python a while ago.


It doesn't even make a native EXE. You need to install the .NET Framework for VB.NET.

same for java, python etc.... ;)

visual c++ can do unmanaged code as well as net


Oh yeah, good point about Python. I totally forgot about that. Haha.

I never tried Visual C++. I only used gcc and Bloodshed.


However, I only use Linux, so I can't use that properly. I use Gambas or Gambas2 for RAD GUI development under Linux. It's almost VB.


i like .NET, its so powerful

i mean, its not as if VB6 ran on everything. It only runs because MS bundled the VB Runtime with windows . Thats what they are doing with NET now (vista includes it)

Although programs can be compiled into native code executables from version 5 onwards, they still require the presence of runtime libraries of approximately 2 MB in size. This runtime is included by default in Windows 2000 and later, but for earlier versions of Windows it must be distributed together with the executable.

Earlier counterparts of Visual Basic (prior to version 5) compiled the code to P-Code or Pseudo code only. Visual Basic 5 and 6 are able to compile the code to either native or P-Code as the programmer chooses. The P-Code is interpreted by the language runtime, also known as virtual machine, implemented for benefits such as portability and small code. However, it usually slows down the execution by adding an additional layer of interpretation of code by the runtime although small amounts of code and algorithms can be constructed to run faster than the compiled native code. Visual Basic applications require Microsoft Visual Basic runtime MSVBVMxx.DLL, where xx is the relevant version number, either 50 or 60. MSVBVM60.dll comes as standard with Windows in all editions after Windows 98 while MSVBVM50.dll comes with all editions after Windows 95. A Windows 95 machine would however require that which ever dll was needed by the program was included with the installer.


I don't like Microsoft products in general. I'm not an anti-Windows/Microsoft person, I just prefer UNIX/Linux/Mac (oddly, yeah, Mac) tools better.


Some thoughts on this thread:

- To the OP: if getting work done is your primary concern, and you don't have any issues with Windows, then I can see no reason why you would want to switch to another operating system. Switching to Linux will just cause more problems and issues to get worked out, and you will of course experience a learning curve. Don't fix what ain't broke. On the other hand, if you're simply curious about using a different operating system, go ahead and try. I enjoy tinkering around with lots of different operating systems. It doesn't necessarily mean I get more work done, it's more of a hobby for me.

- Although many Linux users like to believe this, open source applications on Linux aren't necessarily better quality than commercial ones on the Windows side. In fact, most of the time, I've found the opposite to be true: applications like OpenOffice tend to be sub par in quality when compared to their Windows equivalent (in this case, Microsoft Office). Believe it or not, money can help make applications better.

- Linux doesn't have daily updates (unless you're counting the git repository). Linux is in fact simply a kernel. Although even if you mean the actual distros, those too generally don't tend to have 'daily updates', and for good reason: the versions of applications that are released officially to the public should be well-tested beforehand. Bleeding edge can be nice, but tends to have more bugs. Even Gentoo has profiles to mask newer 'untested' versions of its applications.

- Linux is good for programming: that all depends. In my experience, I've found that while developing command line applications has been relatively trouble-free, GUI applications can be disastrous. Reason being, there's no single good API that one can use to write an application. There's xlib, but this library has relatively few features, and most developers turn to larger libraries such as QT or GTK. There's no real standard, you can't be guaranteed that your application will work as intended on someone else's system. Finally, writing *nix GUI apps really isn't fun.

- .NET: On Windows with Visual Studio, it's probably the best thing to ever come to GUI applications since sliced bread. On the other hand, Mono doesn't even come close to implementing the quality that Microsoft has achieved. Again, if you're doing GUI development, you're better off on Windows.

- Visual Basic 6 is a horrible excuse for a programming language. It encourages bad coding practices (much like all the other variants of BASIC), and I'm quite happy that it's been retired. VB.NET is far, far better.

- Nearly every piece of software needs some kind of special runtime libraries/environment to run (except for perhaps console applications running purely from standard libraries). While .NET needs the .NET framework to run, Java needs JRE, Python code needs a Python interpreter, C/C++ programs usually depend on external libraries, and the list goes on. I wouldn't hold the fact that .NET requires a runtime environment in order to function against it, especially since performance generally isn't affected that much.

- jbennet, your claims that Macs are bad are completely off base. Your little "rant" that you did about a year ago pretty much sums up the amount of basis you have to hate them: practically none. If you disagree with me, go back and read the last couple of comments on your blog entry first. If you can refute those responses in a clean, professional manner, I might just respect your opinion a little bit. But until then -- no thanks.


i actually own one now and i can say that i still don't like it.

*expensive as hell
*the claim of "most advanced o/s in the world" is unbelievable
*lack of commercial apps
*only runs on apple hardware
*treats you like an idiot just like vista does
*i find the interfaceunproductive
*i prefer function over style

pricer proof


* 20" screen
* 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 1GB memory
* 250GB hard drive1
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive
* ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB



*22" screen
* Athlon X2 5000+
*128MB ATI® Radeon™ HD 2400 Pro graphics card
* 2048mb RAM
* 500GB HDD
* DVD Burner
*Vista HP




Again, you lack real reasoning behind your arguments:

- Macs aren't necessarily more expensive than their PC counterparts. All you're proving is a single instance of where a Mac happened to cost more than a Dell. I've seen more than several instances where a Mac happened to be cheaper than its PC equivalent (one of them I even posted here not too long ago). And sometimes it isn't all about the cash you pay initially.

- "The claim of "most advanced o/s in the world" is unbelievable": Yea, that's a good reason not to like Macs. :icon_rolleyes:

- Oh, the irony. A Linux user criticizing an operating system for lack of commercial applications!

...and the rest of your points are purely style-based, completely subjective.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be yelling crap every time you hear "Macs" mentioned in a forum post. You're welcome to dislike them, but continually ranting on and on about how they suck just goes to prove how closed-minded you are.


- Oh, the irony. A Linux user criticizing an operating system for lack of commercial applications!

im a linux user, but i dont promote it for the desktop. Personally i think windows is the best all round OS out at the minute

i have many dislikes too of linux

*lack of commercial apps
* no cohesion between programs in terms of interface
*lack of killer aps - why have 10 different (okay) programs to do the same thing rather than1 (great) one
*unix-like. fundementally i prefer recent NT based oses
*too many districutions
*lack of oem support


I believe that's "distributions," not "districutions." And how is TOO many distributions a bad thing? You pick one you like. If you don't like it, get a new one.

With Windows, I don't like Windows Vista, I go to... Uh, Linux, Or Mac.

Also, how can you dislike Linux for having multiple less quality applications? You try developing an application alone for donations, if not free, and make it as good as a Windows/Apple product.

And with Macs, the price -- you get what you pay for. Multimedia applications and a good interface aimed towards user friendliness.


that's "distributions," not "districutions"

it was a typo. And yes, too many is bad as it confuses newbies and it means there is no cohesion and that developers waste thier time on samey distributons instead of making the father distribution better.

and yes, i dont like vista that much either in terms of the shell, but the kernel and fundementals are nice. vista with a more xpish UI would be nice (classic theme goes some way toward this, but folders, control panel still look wierd)


I just want to try linux out because i am interested. I have been thinking about daul booting xp with ubuntu studio but i have one problem... I really dont have a clue how.

Any advice on how to do this or on how good ubuntu studio is will be greatly appreciated.



dont know about studio, but the normal ubuntu can be setup to split your drive between xp and linux, and it will install a boot menu with options for either linux or xp. It can do this all from the installer, its fairly automatic and simple.

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.