• Linux vs Windows 8
    47 replies, posted
I have to make a power point for school. This is what I have to do. [b]Task 3[/b] Your manager has asked you to take a look at both Microsoft Windows and Linux and compare the operating system features and functions. You will then need to create a presentation which will be presented to Byte Ltd and this will help them decide which operating system to use as they are currently using both. The comparison needs to be detailed and include the good and bad points of each operating system. You need to look at the following features and functions of the 2 operating system and compare them: [b]Functions and services[/b]  File management  Machine & Peripheral Management  Device drivers [b]Features[/b]  Cost & support for the user  Ease of management So I found Everything for windows but I never used Linux and I couldn't found anything about it witch could help me. If is anyone who can help me?
[B]File management[/B] You can get browsers that function just as well, or if not better than explorer (nautilus etc.) But at the same time, disk management isn't as easy in linux as it is in windows, the average user would probably end up confused. [B]Machine & Peripheral Management[/B] This is completely down to the distribution, but linux usually runs more lightweight than windows. [B]Device Drivers[/B] Although linux has had a past of bad driver support, it's turning the opposite way now. While i'd still say windows has far more driver support than linux does, you can almost always find drivers your your hardware on linux. Except it might not be as easy. [B]Cost and support for the user[/B] As previously stated, this is up to the distro. But almost all linux distributions are completely free of charge, and the support for those distributions is unrivaled (Linux Mint, ubuntu). [B]Ease of Management[/B] Personally I find linux to be a whole lot easier to manage. Systems like Synaptic paired with a software centre make retrieving applications a lot easier than having to fetch them from a shady website on windows. Windows is also very prone to virus attacks. While Linux isn't [I]totally[/I] free from viruses, it is sure a heck of a lot more secure than windows is, So much so that you won't even need an antivirus. Modern Linux distributions are also barely affected by fragmentation, at least compared to NTFS, this won't be an issue.
Linux file system is far and away superior. NTFS is in dire need of replacement, but its not easy to roll something like that out, so we are stuck with it. Linux is generally capable of running on weaker hardware. Generally speaking Windows has drivers available for any piece of hardware that is at all recent. Linux frequently requires less setup for things to work (IE it will automatically detect devices and install gadgetry a bit better than windows), but it also quite frequently has problems where you have to go hunting to get some fiddly configuration to keep things like wireless from having seizures. This is especially relevant on the dual graphics setups that laptops have right now. Linux support for them is frequently exceedingly poor. In terms of cost. Well it's free, but your quality of support is all over the map. Sometimes you get instant answers that cover exactly what you need in detail, and sometimes you get raged at. If you want enterprise level service like what Microsoft offers, you still pay for it. Red Hat and such do not provide free support, and the community support is as I said, a very mixed bag. If you are working for a large enough company MS support is simply unbeatable because they are big enough to provide services at prices nobody else can match. Google around a bit. Their support escalation is surgically efficient. [QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37842390] Personally I find linux to be a whole lot easier to manage. Systems like Synaptic paired with a software centre make retrieving applications a lot easier than having to fetch them from a shady website on windows. Windows is also very prone to virus attacks. While Linux isn't [I]totally[/I] free from viruses, it is sure a heck of a lot more secure than windows is, So much so that you won't even need an antivirus.[/QUOTE] Repositories are the ideal way to get most software, but I don't see windows 7 as being insecure. In fact it frequently places pretty well in out of the box configurations. If you actually [I]use[/I] UAC and have things configured to demand a password when making system changes, the security between the systems is very similar. I don't run AV on any of my personal systems using 7. I run it on family members machines only. I've tested once in a while just out of paranoia and its always been completely clean. Eventually I just said I was being paranoid and stopped bothering with it. Haven't had a virus in years. Ultimately, a suitably stupid user is going to infect a machine unless they do not have permissions to do anything to the system. This is true in linux, windows, and macs. In terms of the corporate world the one single thing that people I know say again and again and again and again is this. [quote]Active Directory[/quote] It saves time. Time is money. AD saves money. Tons of it. Linux has made enormous amounts of progress here, but AD is just a sys admins dream come true.
linux wins, because windows 8 is windows 8, ugh. i hate windows 8, its killing gaming.
[QUOTE=PlasticTurd;37879128]linux wins, because windows 8 is windows 8, ugh. i hate windows 8, its killing gaming.[/QUOTE] The words of someone who has never used it.
[QUOTE=PlasticTurd;37879128]linux wins, because windows 8 is windows 8, ugh. i hate windows 8, its killing gaming.[/QUOTE] Yeah gaming is dead. I don't know how, but I saw someone else said it on the internet, therefor it must be true.
[QUOTE=Panda X;37879377]Yeah gaming is dead. I don't know how, but I saw someone else said it on the internet, therefor it must be true.[/QUOTE] it's dead because like, ugh, windows 8 is just... ugh!!!
[QUOTE=Panda X;37879377]Yeah gaming is dead. I don't know how, but I saw someone else said it on the internet, therefor it must be true.[/QUOTE] No you're wrong. Razer saved PC gaming again last week.
Linux is better because you have complete control over how your machine looks and behaves. You aren't forced to use a horrible GUI like "metro" that was designed by some idiot that tried to fix a non-existent problem. You also aren't forced to run idiot file system programs that serve no purpose, other than to be an annoyance and resource hog. If it's not broken, it doesn't need "fixing" and you shouldn't be required "to get used to it" because someone deems it "progress". You then have other stupid problems, like things that manage the file system. SuperFetch, Volume Shadow Copy, System Restore and Windows Update are all horribly implemented and suck up both RAM and disk space for no reason. To exacerbate those matters, there are no easy ways of configuring any of them, besides going into the administrative command console or deep in the systems services to turn them off or reconfigure them. The last well rounded version of Windows was Windows 2000. Ever since then, MS has been concentrating more on shiny buttons (now matte buttons in W8) and less "under the hood" to make the OS actually better.
[QUOTE=bohb;37880014]Linux is better because you have complete control over how your machine looks and behaves. You aren't forced to use a horrible GUI like "metro" that was designed by some idiot that tried to fix a non-existent problem. You also aren't forced to run idiot file system programs that serve no purpose, other than to be an annoyance and resource hog. If it's not broken, it doesn't need "fixing" and you shouldn't be required "to get used to it" because someone deems it "progress". You then have other stupid problems, like things that manage the file system. SuperFetch, Volume Shadow Copy, System Restore and Windows Update are all horribly implemented and suck up both RAM and disk space for no reason. To exacerbate those matters, there are no easy ways of configuring any of them, besides going into the administrative command console or deep in the systems services to turn them off or reconfigure them. The last well rounded version of Windows was Windows 2000. Ever since then, MS has been concentrating more on shiny buttons (now matte buttons in W8) and less "under the hood" to make the OS actually better.[/QUOTE] Windows is itself a resource hog, but well. People today won't care unless they try linux. You really do se a difference in performance, but hey, windows also has its things.
Well it seems the bandwaggons have arrived. So much for any hope the thread had of objectivity.
I feel compelled to laugh hard at anyone that uses the excuse 'It's better to put ram to use then not use it at all' Why optimize anything then. Lightweightedness in a DE is a good thing, because it allows for more user-centric extensions. the desktop effects in windows can literally affect performance in a lot of applications (especially 3D of course).
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883397]I feel compelled to laugh hard at anyone that uses the excuse 'It's better to put ram to use then not use it at all' Why optimize anything then. Lightweightedness in a DE is a good thing, because it allows for more user-centric extensions. the desktop effects in windows can literally affect performance in a lot of applications (especially 3D of course).[/QUOTE] Optimization includes efficiently using RAM. If you can run on 256MB of ram that's great, but if you also have the option to consume 4GB of ram by preloading frequently accessed content, you improve overall system performance by doing so. Not to say that windows or linux do this perfectly, because neither of them does, but unused ram is wasted ram. As long as the system efficiently releases the memory when another application requires it, and only preloads content when you are not accessing your drives, it costs literally nothing to utilize your memory. EDIT: Rather than just disagreeing, would you explain what purpose your unallocated memory is actually serving when you don't preload content?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883440]Optimization includes efficiently using RAM. If you can run on 256MB of ram that's great, but if you also have the option to consume 4GB of ram by preloading frequently accessed content, you improve overall system performance by doing so. Not to say that windows or linux do this perfectly, because neither of them does, but unused ram is wasted ram. [B]As long as the system efficiently releases the memory when another application requires it[/B], and only preloads content when you are not accessing your drives, it costs literally nothing to utilize your memory. EDIT: Rather than just disagreeing, would you explain what purpose your unallocated memory is actually serving when you don't preload content?[/QUOTE] I'm disagreeing here. Windows doesn't do this very well. IMO, half of the shit in Aero is entirely useless. (hence why I would usually disable everything that isn't either window moving animations and transparency) also boohoo ratings
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883327]Well it seems the bandwaggons have arrived. So much for any hope the thread had of objectivity.[/QUOTE] Oh so if everyone started sucking Bill Gates' dick and praising Windows then this would be the pinnacle of objectivity? Sorry to make your reality distortion field break up, but even with the harsh words, everything in this thread is pretty much true. Linux has been technically superior to Windows for a very long time, and recently it has outpaced Windows in usability. Most of the problems with Linux now are installation problems (missing drivers, having to learn the file system, etc.) that a regular customer will never have to deal with in their entire life time. Just like you don't see people bitch that Windows is hard to install or that they had to download drivers without a working internet connection. Compiling from source, you say[1]? Who the fuck does that anymore unless they [B]want [/B]that kind of distro? There's a learning curve, of course, just like Windows had one when you were a kid. To install software on Windows, I still have to go online and search like some fucking scrub whereas it's a single command on Linux. To upgrade software on Windows, I have to make sure that every single one of my application has an integrated software updater in working condition (talk about code duplication) or I have to constantly look online for security/feature updates if not. When Windows breaks, if you're lucky you get something in the event manager, but most of the time nothing will show up there. On Linux, almost every action you undertake is logged or can be configured to be logged. And it's in text files, not some dumb as fuck XML format that I can't open straight from the command line after mounting my hard disk from a LiveCD. In the real world, I'm not gonna deny that there are some issues that can arise from using Linux, but generally it's something like work politics, specific software formats, etc. It's almost never something that Linux is not technically apt at. So OP, wanna compare the two OSes or do you wanna act like you did and then just repeat the same BS Windows users tell themselves when discussing Linux at //BUILD ? Your move. [1] Figure of speech, I realize you didn't [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883440]Optimization includes efficiently using RAM.[/QUOTE] I think the core point of his post is that Windows tends to throw a lot of stuff at you that you can hardly tweak or disable, so when there's an issue it becomes a much bigger problem that is forced upon you. Whereas with Linux, you know that whatever happens, you can change it or someone else can for you. [QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883397]I feel compelled to laugh hard at anyone that uses the excuse 'It's better to put ram to use then not use it at all' Why optimize anything then. Lightweightedness in a DE is a good thing, because it allows for more user-centric extensions. the desktop effects in windows can literally affect performance in a lot of applications (especially 3D of course).[/QUOTE] You'd be laughing at the people who are right. Linux caches disk access for the same reasons mentioned above. It speeds things up. It has nothing to do with efficiently using memory in programs because the disk cache simply uses whatever memory you have left as temporary cache that can be reclaimed at will.
[QUOTE=gparent;37883689]Oh so if everyone started sucking Bill Gates' dick and praising Windows then this would be the pinnacle of objectivity? Sorry to make your reality distortion field break up, but even with the harsh words, everything in this thread is pretty much true. Linux has been technically superior to Windows for a very long time, and recently it has outpaced Windows in usability. Most of the problems with Linux now are installation problems (missing drivers, having to learn the file system, etc.) that a regular customer will never have to deal with in their entire life time. Just like you don't see people bitch that Windows is hard to install or that they had to download drivers without a working internet connection. Compiling from source, you say[1]? Who the fuck does that anymore unless they [B]want [/B]that kind of distro? There's a learning curve, of course, just like Windows had one when you were a kid. To install software on Windows, I still have to go online and search like some fucking scrub whereas it's a single command on Linux. To upgrade software on Windows, I have to make sure that every single one of my application has an integrated software updater in working condition (talk about code duplication) or I have to constantly look online for security/feature updates if not. When Windows breaks, if you're lucky you get something in the event manager, but most of the time nothing will show up there. On Linux, almost every action you undertake is logged or can be configured to be logged. And it's in text files, not some dumb as fuck XML format that I can't open straight from the command line after mounting my hard disk from a LiveCD. In the real world, I'm not gonna deny that there are some issues that can arise from using Linux, but generally it's something like work politics, specific software formats, etc. It's almost never something that Linux is not technically apt at. So OP, wanna compare the two OSes or do you wanna act like you did and then just repeat the same BS Windows users tell themselves when discussing Linux at //BUILD ? Your move. [1] Figure of speech, I realize you didn't I think the core point of his post is that Windows tends to throw a lot of stuff at you that you can hardly tweak or disable, so when there's an issue it becomes a much bigger problem that is forced upon you. Whereas with Linux, you know that whatever happens, you can change it or someone else can for you.[/QUOTE] TL;DR, if you break linux, you can more than likely fix it pretty quickly. Whereas, a lot of the time, when you break windows, it's pretty much reinstall.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883704]TL;DR, if you break linux, you can more than likely fix it pretty quickly. Whereas, a lot of the time, when you break windows, it's pretty much reinstall.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I like that about Linux too. I've never had to reinstall it, and whenever it broke, it was my fault. (and I fixed it)
And migrating a linux installation is way easier than migrating to a new windows installation. If you have a special partition for your /home, then you can just replace your / partition with your new installation, and remount your /home, and you have all your configs and files, as if you never reinstalled your OS
I don't think windows has a tool like most package manager upgrading tools have either apt-get upgrade/update is pretty useful. I'm almost certain other package managers have this exact function too
You are talking about eyecandy now which is almost entirely different than efficiency of memory utilization. Windows has a larger memory footprint. Nobody denies that. Its requirements are higher, mainly because of the eyecandy. That's an entirely separate issue from preloading content. If I have 8GB of memory, and my OS tries to ensure that 4-6GB of it is consumed at all points in time by loading and dumping content it thinks I'm going to use, that's far and away more efficient use of my memory than just idling at 600MB forever and never prefetching any content. As long as it doesn't try to prefetch material while I'm engaged in heavy disk I/O, CPU usage, or anything of the sort, I lose zero performance by caching content on RAM. I stand to gain considerable boosts as applications that already exist in RAM can be loaded at enormously greater speeds. You seem to be confusing the two issues.
[QUOTE=gparent;37883689]Oh so if everyone started sucking Bill Gates' dick and praising Windows then this would be the pinnacle of objectivity? Sorry to make your reality distortion field break up, but even with the harsh words, everything in this thread is pretty much true.[/QUOTE] I was referencing every piece of retarded lopsided discussion. I have never outright said that windows is objectively superior, and I never will. There are retarded things in every OS that I have ever used.
The fact that Win7 has a 16GB install footprint at the very least isn't very great, either. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37883812]I was referencing every piece of retarded lopsided discussion. I have never outright said that windows is objectively superior, and I never will.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as a lopsided argument, unless you're talking about a clear bias. You're always arguing for windows by tacking your opinion on things and dismissing others [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-rolleye.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883657]I'm disagreeing here. Windows doesn't do this very well. IMO, half of the shit in Aero is entirely useless. (hence why I would usually disable everything that isn't either window moving animations and transparency) also boohoo ratings[/QUOTE] DWM doesn't use that much RAM.
[QUOTE=Panda X;37883887]DWM doesn't use that much RAM.[/QUOTE] 2GB at [I]idle[/I] is a fair amount. I'm judging from Win7 though. They optimized 8 quite a bit, but I'm not judging from it since it's not released yet.
for me its about ~400mb idle
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37844721] I don't run AV on any of my personal systems using 7. I run it on family members machines only. I've tested once in a while just out of paranoia and its always been completely clean. Eventually I just said I was being paranoid and stopped bothering with it. Haven't had a virus in years. Ultimately, a suitably stupid user is going to infect a machine unless they do not have permissions to do anything to the system. This is true in linux, windows, and macs. In terms of the corporate world the one single thing that people I know say again and again and again and again is this. [/QUOTE] Brrrr. I repaired two laptops yesterday, both had no Antivirus, Win7. You know how many viruses each had? 600. Now do you think I'm ever going to get that on Linux? Sure, maybe it's because of windows' huge marketshare, but 600 without an antivirus is pretty dangerous. Generally illiterate users can be led to believe that they are downloading legitimate software by those huge 'Download now!!' adverts on sites, which you aren't led to by package managers like on Ubuntu.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883903]2GB at [I]idle[/I] is a fair amount. I'm judging from Win7 though. They optimized 8 quite a bit, but I'm not judging from it since it's not released yet.[/QUOTE] How the hell is DWM using 2GB of RAM for you? Mine's only at 53MB.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;37883949]for me its about ~400mb idle[/QUOTE] Hmm. Perhaps there was something wrong with my installation, or my hardware is just not very well supported under windows. That brings me to another point, Windows driver signing. I have to run Windows in Test mode to install my soundcard drivers, but this is partly up to the distributor of the drivers.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37883903]2GB at [I]idle[/I] is a fair amount. I'm judging from Win7 though. They optimized 8 quite a bit, but I'm not judging from it since it's not released yet.[/QUOTE] DWM is using 43MB on my system right now and I have something like 15 windows open. Firefox is consuming 750MB because I have 11 billion tabs open, steam is shitting itself and using 700MB while updating dota 2, and my total memory use is 2.1GB. Windows 7 idles around 650MB on this system. I have no idea where you are pulling 2GB from. That's more than triple what I've seen on several systems. 8 is something like 450, but that was an older build, I don't know how much that has changed.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37884035]DWM is using 43MB on my system right now and I have something like 15 windows open. Firefox is consuming 750MB because I have 11 billion tabs open, steam is shitting itself and using 700MB while updating dota 2, and my total memory use is 2.1GB. Windows 7 idles around 650MB on this system. I have no idea where you are pulling 2GB from. That's more than triple what I've seen on several systems. 8 is something like 450, but that was an older build, I don't know how much that has changed.[/QUOTE] Win8 usually ran at a total of ~500MB at idle @ Build 8400 for me, which I find to be pretty nice. Almost on par with my Mint installation if anything
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.