Linux is not only better than windows, it is also easier to install and maintain

Good stuff - nice comparison!

Windows is absolute crap - it is expensive, bloated and virus-prone and provides far less functionality (e.g. office apps, programming tools) than
just about any Linux distro will give you (or one of the BSDs for that matter).

Keep up the good work!
- Andy

try out also mandriva spring (2007.1) and wait for 2008

http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Development/Ideas/Technical_specs_2008

You forgot one of the big reasons why I (and a lot of other people) won't switch to Linux: games. Everything you said was true, I don't deny that. However, Linux just doesn't run the majority of new games; it's a simple fact. Until they get some gaming support, it won't catch on with a huge segment of the PC market.

You are right,
They are starting, see this post, http://www.go2linux.org/openarena-quake-like-game-for-linux-free

but off-course they are far behind Windows, but is not because of Linux it is because of the gaming industry who does not create games for Linux (At least that is my opinion). I think someday it will happen.

Guillermo Garron

Lawd, here we go again with the "M$ sux0rz!111" article. It seems nowadays I'm only finding "M$ sucks!1111 switch 2 linux lolz!" articles. Gone are the days of "Hey guys! I found a nifty solution for that buggy X Driver! Here's how to make it work!"

But let me address your article, here. It's true, up until the point where you end Ubuntu. I find it interesting that you stop at the Ubuntu loading screen, because you're not quite done yet. :P Lest you forget setting root's password? Any driver issues you might encounter?

Oh, not to mention:

THE SHEER AMOUNT OF UPDATES?

Oh, also, going through the screens to add Universe, and the rest of those lovely repositories to your sources.list?

Add that all up and you're just about close to Windows XP. :P

And I also find it disturbing that you say "you can forget about the anti-virus". No. You should never "forget" about Anti-virus, even on Linux. There are viruses out there for Linux! No OS is safe from a virus, I promise you that. The only reason this myth got started, is because fan boys don't do their research. The number of viruses for Linux is starkly lower than Windows, but then again Windows is far more popular.

If the fan boys get their way, there will be more viruses written for Linux. It's just a matter of time and popularity.

By the way, if any of you would like an Anti virus for Linux:

Clam-AV is good, and I think it comes preinstalled on Ubuntu. Most other distrobutions are starting to carry AV as well.

I would also like to point out that Ubuntu doesn't come with a GUI firewall already, though it does have iptables installed.

However, configuring and setting up Iptables for your environment would add several screens to your setup up there. :P

http://www.linux.com/articles/55319 <-- Good reference for GUI apps by the way.

In conclusion, the set up and maintainance of an OS can't be measured that way. You would have to boil down to the file systems and how things installed/uninstalled.

Good post, but I feel it's misguided.

And what about Apple? I mean, if were talking simplicity for the end user, Apple takes the cake.

Mac OS X has even less steps than Ubuntu, if I recall correctly. If you'd like, I can provide the Mac comparison screen shots when I upgrade to Leopard in a month or so.

As someone stated previously in another comment, the only reason I haven't made a serious attempt to become a Linux user is that I can't go to the shop tomorrow, buy Bioshock for Linux, stick it in my dvd drive and play it.

Even older games that are just an install away on Windows could take hours/days of faffing around to get running on Linux.

I made a half-arsed attempt at installing video drivers for my 7600GT using a fairly recent release of Kubuntu but the idea in the back of my head was always "I could just go back to windows and be playing in 10 minutes".

I agree that it is at least partly due to a lack of support by the videogame industry but it's also largely because (afaik) there are multiple distributions of linux that all work in slightly different ways, and providing easy to understand documentation for the end user would be a complete nightmare. Then factor in patching and support for games on each of these distributions and you can imagine why the industry isn't exactly chomping at the bit to jump on the Linux bandwagon when they are already making lots of profit on an operating system that is comparitively easy to develop for.

What a horribly contrived article.

Due to your lack of knowledge on the subject, and your clear inability to understand such topics (and your lack of English skills), this article has been turned into yet another campground for idiots to fester on problems which simply do not exist. The linked article that inspired you to write this is also heavily based of the assumption that windows users are idiots.

I see that on your screen shots of the various steps in installing vista/ubuntu, at the point where Ubuntu goes to the loading screen, you tape on all of the vista configuration screens that were not present in the final release, but of course you had to include them, otherwise vista would be the same as ubuntu, which we obviously can't have.

If you are going to use Windows Vista, why did you install an office suite that is four years old? You are comparing the latest iterations of each piece of software, not the previous versions. I believe that you have done this, however, in order to exemplify office 2003's lengthy installation process. Office 2007 in fact has a far simpler installation than most other applications in existence.

Moving on to your further analysis of 'Windows', I quote:

"And we should not forget, that Linux is more stable, its Desktop effects are better, it is less hardware hungry, it is free (as in freedom and as in beer), its messenger client works with MSN, Yahoo, and others."

I take it that you base your assumption of 'stability' on some previous knowledge of what windows once was, and not what it actually is at present. Microsoft have gone to fairly great lengths to give the user as much information about application crashes and system reliability figures, which obviously help more than a command prompt. As for desktop effects, by 'better', do you mean there are more of them? Vista's effects are not to lull the user into a sense of amazement, but rather to increase ease of use, while maintaining a polished interface. Yes, you can improve ubuntu's interface with other applications such as beryl, however this requires additional components to be installed. The default theme for ubuntu is far worse than that of windows vista.

As for vista's supposed 'hardware hungriness', your lack of knowledge on this subject becomes yet more apparent. Vista uses the available hardware to actually enhance the operating system, rather than leave them there, out of use. Prefetching is one benefit of this, and is something that Vista does extremely well, whereas ubuntu's prefetching abilities do not come close to matching the former.

I won't go on, as I believe my criticism has been sufficient enough to persuade you that your article is very poorly written, and that you should further your knowledge with relation to windows/linux, and develop a balanced point of view. There are many more problems with your article that I haven't outlined in this criticism, however due to time and motivation constraints I will stop here.

Your article reads like a third grade assignment, as opposed to a well thought out research essay which is what you are trying to pass it off as.

Hi,
what about the word and spreadsheet compatibility? can I work on a text in Linux and continue to work on it at work in Windows Office ?

Microsoft have gone to fairly great lengths to give the user as much information about application crashes and system reliability figures, which obviously help more than a command prompt.

Yes, they have improved in collecting information, but not fixing it. You are a microsoft lover, it's ok no issues. I am a kernel coder and have come across both systems.

As for desktop effects, by 'better', do you mean there are more of them? Vista's effects are not to lull the user into a sense of amazement, but rather to increase ease of use, while maintaining a polished interface.

Techie Stuff
------------
Windows Vista use of framebuffer cache is a bad example of graphics programming. Open multiple windows max 15 and see the speed of refreshing. I don't face such issue in Linux. Clearly vista is eating up the RAM. Yes I tried it on 2Gb RAM, nVidia GE6 Series.

Vista uses the available hardware to actually enhance the operating system, rather than leave them there, out of use. Prefetching is one benefit of this

Vista never does prefetching. Use Syser debugger to actually debug the code, and you will find a mockery of source code in graphics stuff. Maybe thats why they never release windows code. Scheduler is pathetic enough and never takes preemption to a good level. The architecture of CFQ is far better.

I accept the blog is not techie and doesn't go down to the code level, but anyway the facts are true , whether you accept it or not. Microsoft code is not performance based. Laughable fact is the .exe emulation format still uses the old dos format. Open any exe file and you will see the characters MZ in the first line. Generations of history being carried together from old IBM programmers. It's a legacy.

I don't hate microsoft. I just think thier stuff is not worth using. I don't pay for garbage, but i dont care if people do.

What the Author forgets to mention, is that the installation of Linux doesn't stop there, Try setting up you wireless connection, it's a nightmare. The reality is that Linux is not user friendly, if I have to spend 8 hours trying to connect to the internet and setting up the drivers, I much rather live with the crappier but much user friendly Windows.