Linux vs. Windows

**roman02us** · Jul 7th, 2002, 05:00 PM

Ok what is the difference between the two? Linux and Windows.

**Gimlin** · Jul 7th, 2002, 05:03 PM

Arg

**JungleMan** · Jul 7th, 2002, 05:09 PM

Too many differences for anyone to cover.

Basically Linux is for servers, Windows is for desktops.

**Wynd** · Jul 7th, 2002, 06:36 PM

Linux: Stabler, more efficient, free, infinitely more modifiable/tweakable, harder to use and set up, uptimes can be measured in years.

Windows: Crash-prone, costs lots of money, easy to use and install, supports more of everything (games, peripherals, you name it).

So basically, if you would like to try something different or are sick of Windows, or are short on cash, or need a stable server, try Linux. If you play games, have a pocketPC or something, or your VCR is still flashing 12:00, use Windows.

**Gimlin** · Jul 7th, 2002, 06:37 PM

How stable is linux for Games

Linux is really good at the very little it can do.

Windows is good at everthing

Zaei · Jul 7th, 2002, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Gimlin
How stable is linux for Games

Linux is really good at the very little it can do.

Windows is good at everthing

Windows still cant read my mind, or serve me dinner =).

Z.

**Wynd** · Jul 7th, 2002, 06:43 PM

Not being a reliable server, look here for their longest measured uptimes. Notice out of the top 50, none are Windows.

Not trying to bash Windows or anything, but it's not good at everything. No one OS is.

**Gimlin** · Jul 7th, 2002, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Wynd
Not being a reliable server, look here for their longest measured uptimes. Notice out of the top 50, none are Windows.

Not trying to bash Windows or anything, but it's not good at everything. No one OS is.

I am not normally a "get windows it roxors" person but I said it was "good" so making a top 50 would make it "good", that being I said linux "very good", thus should appear higher on the list which it does.

In Any argue ment with the titles

Windows VS Linux
AMD VS Intel
ATI VS Nvidia

ETC.

We should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

**Gandalf_Grey_** · Jul 7th, 2002, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Gimlin
How stable is linux for Games

Linux is really good at the very little it can do.

Windows is good at everthing

what can't linux do? well besides run crap specifically designed for windows. Linux is very stable for games. I play quake III on linux all the time and it hasn't crashed on me once

**Gandalf_Grey_** · Jul 7th, 2002, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Wynd
Linux: Stabler, more efficient, free, infinitely more modifiable/tweakable, harder to use and set up, uptimes can be measured in years.

Windows: Crash-prone, costs lots of money, easy to use and install, supports more of everything (games, peripherals, you name it).

So basically, if you would like to try something different or are sick of Windows, or are short on cash, or need a stable server, try Linux. If you play games, have a pocketPC or something, or your VCR is still flashing 12:00, use Windows.

Exactly although i do contest that linux is a great gaming platform, its just that most of the games out there are made for windows

**Beacon** · Jul 7th, 2002, 08:47 PM

doesnt anyone know how to search on these forums!!!

Or was he after the exact differences in things like the kernel etc.

**roman02us** · Jul 7th, 2002, 09:37 PM

I heard linux and unix is for serious computer wizards. It has all compilers like C\C++. So I dont think I'm ready for a linux.

**Gimlin** · Jul 7th, 2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by roman02us
I heard linux and unix is for serious computer wizards. It has all compilers like C\C++. So I dont think I'm ready for a linux.

Arg, what a load. "Serious Computer Wizards" use both.

**JungleMan** · Jul 7th, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Wynd
Linux: Stabler, more efficient, free, infinitely more modifiable/tweakable, harder to use and set up, uptimes can be measured in years.

Windows: Crash-prone, costs lots of money, easy to use and install, supports more of everything (games, peripherals, you name it).

So basically, if you would like to try something different or are sick of Windows, or are short on cash, or need a stable server, try Linux. If you play games, have a pocketPC or something, or your VCR is still flashing 12:00, use Windows.

Pocket PC pwns Palm
yes I play games
No I'm not stupid
No my Win2K box hasn't crashed in a while

Linux = servers
Windows = desktops

**JungleMan** · Jul 7th, 2002, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf_Grey_
well besides run crap specifically designed for windows

Which is everything.

I don't want to f**k with emulators, look at Lindows, it's a joke. I can only imagine what Wine is like.

Meanwhile I'm gonna go back to playing GTA3 on my Win2K box that's been up for the past 3 days (shut it off because of a power outage)...

**snakeeyes1000** · Jul 7th, 2002, 10:09 PM

dos is better than them all. faster, stabler, and if they made it more than 8 bit, would be the choice for all serious computer users. Imagine a 64-Bit DOS. Drool

**Gimlin** · Jul 7th, 2002, 10:14 PM

I like dos too, and hey, bonus, windows comes with dos

**Gandalf_Grey_** · Jul 7th, 2002, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Gimlin
I like dos too, and hey, bonus, windows comes with dos

windows doesn't come with dos. the NT product line aren't even based on DOS (unlike the 9x product line). the NT based OS's just have a command prompt to provide low level, low overhead access to basic information and system functions to the user.

I agree that DOS is great, it is the best operating system that microsoft ever released. It was far ahead of its time at its release (not like microsoft wrote it or anything).

Zaei · Jul 8th, 2002, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by JungleMan

Meanwhile I'm gonna go back to playing GTA3 on my Win2K box that's been up for the past 3 days (shut it off because of a power outage)...

My Virtual Win2k machine has been up for 4 days, and I dont see it crashing any time soon. In fact, I set it up 4 days ago... =).

On the other hand, my XP box has a very re-creatable BSOD. I simply Log into a user, then do a "Switch User" thing, then log into a different user, log out, and attempt to log back onto the first user... BSOD, reset. Stable like an upside-down pyramid =).

And my Linux server... lets not talk about that. Stable like night follows day. We dont even have a moniter hooked up to the thing... doesnt need one.

Personally, I would use Win2k or Linux for a server, and win2k for a desktop. If I had 2 desktops, I would have linux on one as well.

And if you like ms-dos, why not just, you know, learn linux, and use it through telnet, or as a terminal? Its basically 32(or 64, depending on the implmentation) bit dos, with a different file system, and what have you.

Anyway, to conclude my novel...

The End.

Z.

**Gimlin** · Jul 8th, 2002, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Gandalf_Grey_

windows doesn't come with dos. the NT product line aren't even based on DOS (unlike the 9x product line). the NT based OS's just have a command prompt to provide low level, low overhead access to basic information and system functions to the user.

I agree that DOS is great, it is the best operating system that microsoft ever released. It was far ahead of its time at its release (not like microsoft wrote it or anything).

well NT comes with Command Prompt which is better anyway

**Michael_Kamen** · Jul 8th, 2002, 07:58 AM

Yes, but Linux comes with a command prompt which can do 10,000 times more........ (ANYthing you can do in Linux, you can do with the command prompt.)

**JungleMan** · Jul 8th, 2002, 08:43 AM

What does everyone like about command prompts? It reminds me of the 80s, haven't we evolved from punching obscure commands into a blinking cursor?

**Emo** · Jul 8th, 2002, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by JungleMan
What does everyone like about command prompts? It reminds me of the 80s, haven't we evolved from punching obscure commands into a blinking cursor?

yes, but a lot of times, that blinking cursor is your best friend when it comes to your windows crashing.....

-Emo

**snakeeyes1000** · Jul 8th, 2002, 09:25 AM

you are naive, jungleman. I like to know exactly what my computer is doing, and the only way to know that is by running a command prompt. What the hell does it doe when I say copy? Let's see you prove that it only copies. In dos, with stack registers, I have got all the proof I need. Never used Linux myself, but I heard it's not bad. Window's isn't bad either, but, aside from internet, I use DOS for file writing, reading, and editing files because it can do 500megs of writing in 54 milliseconds, and around 600megs for reading. Try that in windows.

**snakeeyes1000** · Jul 8th, 2002, 09:28 AM

Windows is like driving an automatic. Command prompts are like a multiple gear. Imagine that the both have the same horsepower, same parts, everything. If someone can shift gears correctly, he will be able do drive faster and more efficiently than he ever could have done in automatic. Same exact principle.

**Emo** · Jul 8th, 2002, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
Windows is like driving an automatic. Command prompts are like a multiple gear. Imagine that the both have the same horsepower, same parts, everything. If someone can shift gears correctly, he will be able do drive faster and more efficiently than he ever could have done in automatic. Same exact principle.

very well said!

-Emo

Zaei · Jul 8th, 2002, 05:49 PM

Doesnt mean you cant shift gears with a GUI... I like my command prompt because I can use it though telnet, which means I can use it ANYWHERE. Same for Linux, except I work TOTALLY through telnet (like I said, no moniter). I can also check and send email from my command prompt (just log into my mail server =).

And of course, there is that feeling of being totally old skool.

Z.

[edit]
Also, creating a program that runs in a console requires nearly zero effort =).

Thread: Linux vs. Windows

Thread Tools

Display

Linux vs. Windows

Posting Permissions