5 Reasons To Run Windows 8 Instead Of Linux

I think more people would turn to Linux if there was better gaming support. The main reason a lot of people stick with Windows to play their online games. I know I would switch to Linux full time if more online games were supported.

There's no question that if Linux had more support for popular desktop software that it would have more market shave on the desktop.
 
Linux doesn't hold a candle to windows. It takes ten times as long to get anything done, and sometimes it feels like the commands are senselessly complicated for even the simplest task.
 
Really, the Linux community that can't figure out what Linux wants to be is what is holding back Linux the most. Linux fans will espouse that everyone should drop Windows because Linux is so much better and yet will deride and look down upon anyone that can't write a driver or configure an installation or even install a program. You can't have it both ways. Either Linux overtakes windows because it is free, runs everything people want to run, easy to use and everything is done with the GUI, and basically idiot proof... or Linux remains a niche OS for geeks that can feel comfortable in their smug superiority in knowing how to script and run half the os from a command prompt unlike the average windows user. They try to do both with different distributions... and I've lost track of how many new distributions that have come out being hailed as *the one that shall kill windows*... but it hasn't worked in the 25 years I've been in the tech industry and I don't see it changing tomorrow.

Solid post here.
 
Sorry for the triple post, but you guys should watch the video in the article. I was lol'ing almost nonstop.
 
Linux doesn't hold a candle to windows. It takes ten times as long to get anything done, and sometimes it feels like the commands are senselessly complicated for even the simplest task.

I use Mint and its just like using windows. Click on an icon and it loads.
 
Linux doesn't hold a candle to windows. It takes ten times as long to get anything done, and sometimes it feels like the commands are senselessly complicated for even the simplest task.

Really?
How long has it been since you've ran Linux and which distro ticked you off?
Honestly it took me a long time to go back to Linux and I started off with copies of Suse and Red Hat around 2002 so I could run SINS on my 2nd pc while I ran EQ on my Windows PC. Linux has come a loooong way.
There are "Advanced" distros and "Beginner" distros.
Linux's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness, choice.
 
LINUX is not for people that really have little interest in computers.
For those types, please stick to Windows. It was designed for people like you.
For those who are interested in computers and it's development into a valuable tool for getting tasks done under an open source umbrella Linux is for you.

Follow this simple guide, 99% of the bitching and whining will go away.
 
LINUX is not for people that really have little interest in computers.
For those types, please stick to Windows. It was designed for people like you.
For those who are interested in computers and it's development into a valuable tool for getting tasks done under an open source umbrella Linux is for you.

Follow this simple guide, 99% of the bitching and whining will go away.

QFT
Very well said.
 
Like with everything else there is a learning curve, and it's not for everyone.

I used to run desktop Linux for almost 15 years. (Red Hat -> Gentoo -> Ubuntu -> Mint) Linux was my work OS and I dual booted to Windows for my gaming needs.

I don't anymore, because ever since the launch of Windows 7, Windows has actually been both reasonably stable and reasonably secure (something unthinkable in the 90s and early 2000's), and it just wasn't worth the trouble anymore. It was easier to just be able to run all my stuff from the same boot.

I still - however - run Unix and Linux on my servers. I currently have two FreeBSD servers and an Ubuntu server. IMHO nothing with a GUI ever belongs on a server, especially not Windows...

A good command line shell and text file configs beat dicking around with annoying GUI config windows any time. So much easier and more efficient to manage.

But again, if a GUI is what you are used to it will feel alien and there will be a learning curve.
 
My two cents...

Linux is a great embedded OS. Linux is a great server OS. Linux is NOT a consumer OS.
The exception being, of course, Android -- which is Linux kernel based, but at the UI level is probably about as far removed from a standard distro than OS X is from BSD.

I have been playing with Linux since Volkerding release the first Slackware distribution. Back in the early 90's, I was writing custom VGA timing parameters that ended up in XFree86 and FractInt. At work, I use Linux constantly and a large portion of my job revolves around it: I have rolled out multiple servers using Centos at various organization (as part of my IT work), and, as part of my software engineering job, I am currently doing low-level kernel work, board bring-up, device drivers on iMX series ARM parts, and I just finished doing the DCD's, DTS, and board files needed to port the barebox boot loader to a Variscite iMX6 SOM. I do most of my actual development work in either Suse or Kubuntu.

At home, I also have updated all my routers to Tomato -- including my own custom builds. I have multiple routers performing different functions: for instance I've got one running Asterisk/optware acting as my voicemail system and providing Google Voice connectivity [sadly, for only another three months when XMPP goes away]). I've also done a couple of my own test builds recently of Merlin's firmware for my main RT-AC66U in an attempt to figure out a couple of weird OpenVPN issues (I finally said the heck with it, for now, and just moved over to Shibby's Tomato builds, which work "good enough").

Basically, the point I am making is that, where Linux experience is concerned, I think I would be considered just a tad above the curve.

That said, I like Windows better for my main OS usage.

I typically run my Linux development platforms in VM's under Windows 7.
Why? Because I like the UI better than KDE, Unity, etc.
Additionally, the device driver support and application support under Windows is better.
(e.g. having to use Wine to run Outlook to connect to an Exchange server is a pain -- and doesn't work 100% right all the time). Also, I also like my editors and development environment better under Windows: I have yet to find an editor that I feel is anywhere near as good as old Borland CodeWright is. I generally do about half my Linux editing in CodeWright out of a shared virtual folder from the VM. And, yes, I use Eclipse (Kepler) under Linux -- and it still has a tendency to get progessively slower the longer it runs and occasionally just does weird things (I haven't tried the Luna beta's yet).

Similarly, on my machine at home, I run Windows 7.
Why? Well, for one, it runs NetFlix without having to resort to funky Wine wrappers.
Secondly, Windows fully supports my CableCard tuners including CopyOnce content like HBO (unlike Mythbuntu, etc -- which I have used before).
Third, I can play back BluRay on my Windows box without having to jump through hoops.
Fourth, I just like the feel of the UI better.
Fifth: most stuff "just works" (when I'm installing a new program that I need or want to use, I don't want to have to figure out if it works right with GCC 4.8, if the version of libc I have gets along with the version of gtk+ I have, etc.)

The freedom and variation of open source is a mixed blessing: it's probably its greatest asset at the low level, embedded side of the world, but is its biggest curse when trying to get it turned into an accepted consumer level platform.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040580339 said:
A good command line shell and text file configs beat dicking around with annoying GUI config windows any time. So much easier and more efficient to manage.

I agree with this 100%.

It is far easier -- and MUCH more reliable -- to just edit the config files in /etc than to attempt to use the horrendous GUI's that Ubuntu, etc try to slap over the top of things (which you have to jump through hoops to disable, so that they don't keep modifying the files you have already hand edited).
 
I didn't realize that ZDNet was paying forum trolls to post on their site now. Maybe I can get them to pay me.
 
Linux is just the kernel, and it's awesome. Now, x.org / kde / gnome / general apps ... sad story. There's no "momentum of cohesion" in the community. Maybe the new Steam OS effort will drag everyone along to something common, but I heard they based their distro on the wrong one ... :D
 
if linux had more game and software support and 3d support for things other than open GL. I would leave windows behind for ever.


It does not however.


maya and 3d studio max runs like trash on linux because it uses the opengl api and not the direct x it was made for.

maya also runs like trash on MAC for the same reasons (and MAcs have trash gpus put in them even the new mac pro is using 2 weak fire GL gpus in cross fire you can get better GPUS in any other machine and run them in crossfire for less.)

#1 Maya on Windows can use OpenGL or Direct3D. I believe so does 3DS Max. That's back when I was making 3D models for Quake 3 Arena, but I haven't touched those tools since.

#2 Graphics run like trash on Mac cause Apple gives two shits about graphics performance. So their drivers are never updated, or rarely.

#3 There is work for a native Direct3D api, and it works. It just needs developers who are interested, and Wine developers are not. The reason, the DX9 state driver would only work on Linux, and wouldn't be cross platform.
 
I use Mint and its just like using windows. Click on an icon and it loads.

I like Mint 16 better then Windows. Everything is fast and instant, and I can customize the UI. I can actually run World of Warcraft on it, faster then it ran in Windows with less ping. Can't say the same thing about Dark Souls. Stupid Windows Live crap.
 
Linux is just the kernel, and it's awesome. Now, x.org / kde / gnome / general apps ... sad story. There's no "momentum of cohesion" in the community. Maybe the new Steam OS effort will drag everyone along to something common, but I heard they based their distro on the wrong one ... :D

Yep.

Technically, Linux is just the kernel -- and a fine kernel it is! -- but the rest of the world generally means a full distribution when they refer to Linux.

And, you are 100% right on the lack of cohesion in the distro community.
I think the members of Congress agree with each other more often than the members of the "Linux Ecosystem" community do!
 
my five:
1) 8.1 is more pleasant to use
2) ms excel
3) won't ditch visual studio, 2013 is especially nice
4) rdp makes working from home easy
5) general driver availability
 
I rather run Linux than Windows 8. I'm happy with Linux Mint and Windows 7. Redhat is nice too but more so server-side. I don't see any distro being good for the average user though. Not that it matters anyway since Windows and OSX are better for the average user.
 
Linux is pretty worthless in some area's.

1 Excel is king if you think there are acceptable alternatives you must not know what excel does.
2 CAD work yeah right linux...
3 You can run a live stream esp with dealing with multiple video and audio feeds and overlays etc, if you want any sorta production value linux is not for you. Hell watch any linux conference or w.e live feeds i bet you they aren't running linux on those computers to bring you those streams.
4 Games linux has games like mac has games, probably less so.
5 Linux is great for embedded systems but that's mostly because people are lazy and cheap.
 
my five:
1) 8.1 is more pleasant to use
2) ms excel
3) won't ditch visual studio, 2013 is especially nice
4) rdp makes working from home easy
5) general driver availability

Yep. I love 8.1 , turned off Metro and I'm golden. Its stable , its smooth and I'll be happy to keep it.

I love Ubuntu though. Its got serious legs , its got a simplified interface and its very "unlinux" like in how it does backround processes.

Linux however I feel respects privacy more and is a more secure platform. Windows 8.1 is such a big target that frankly I tend to not store precious information on it if I can help it. There was a research study release recently that stated a certain version of Ubuntu was the most secure OS and frankly I can believe it. So for that reason alone I hope people don't start using Linux on a widespread scale for desktop usage. I like that its still confined and trust worthy. At least Ubuntu didn't sell all its customers down the river to please the NSA or at least not that we know.

Microsoft is no more trustworthy than any other tech company in the states. But Microsoft does keep up with security holes in its OS (most of the time) and more so than Apple which is happy to leave gaping holes for years without acknowledgement. Personally I think OSX is the least secure platform. The people I know that use Mac's for work have the worst habits for personal security and use dumb ass passwords like "golf" or "123456". Meanwhile many Windows users I know have the foresight to use strong passwords with upper and lower case letters plus numbers and in long strings. I don't mean to throw all OSX users in one pot but they seem to expect less security holes simply because its Apple and that's the worst ignorance of all.
 
Linux doesn't hold a candle to windows. It takes ten times as long to get anything done, and sometimes it feels like the commands are senselessly complicated for even the simplest task.

Computers in general are pretty unintuitive. I'm not as proficient with Windows or OS X as I am with Linux, and it takes me ten times as long to get anything OS related done with those.

Or phrased another way: The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned.
 
LINUX is not for people that really have little interest in computers.
For those types, please stick to Windows. It was designed for people like you.
For those who are interested in computers and it's development into a valuable tool for getting tasks done under an open source umbrella Linux is for you.

Follow this simple guide, 99% of the bitching and whining will go away.
Less and Less true every year. Seems most people formed their opinions of Linux, fans and non-fans alike, 10 years ago and they haven't re-evaluted those opinions with an open mind. Linux is not far from an XP level. XP was successful for a long time. Offer someone if they could have XP for free or pay over $100 for Windows 8 on their next PC purchase, ask them which would they pick. The Linux userbase among the commoners will explode then.
 
Oh. Poor ZDNet "webmaster" guy.
Tried Linux, expecting "Windows for Free", found out it wasn't for him (requires an IQ in the positive numbers), and now has a mad-on because he can't be "cool".
My heart breaks for him.
 
Less and Less true every year. Seems most people formed their opinions of Linux, fans and non-fans alike, 10 years ago and they haven't re-evaluted those opinions with an open mind. Linux is not far from an XP level. XP was successful for a long time. Offer someone if they could have XP for free or pay over $100 for Windows 8 on their next PC purchase, ask them which would they pick. The Linux userbase among the commoners will explode then.

Agree.
BUT getting those who have generally little interest in computers (and what makes them tick) will struggle and complain the most. For those any deviation to what they are accustom to in Windows is too much to ask.
I went through 3 -buntu types before my wife would stop complaining and learn how to use it.
Ubuntu, she hated, Kubuntu was better, still didn't like it. Xubuntu was close enough to window actually put for more efforts to learn it's differences and stopped complaining. And she is no dummy. She has a lot more formal education than I do. But does she have any real interest in computers themselves? NONE.

You would think because the OS is FREE along with most all the software people would rush to adopt it. IT does not happen because MOST PEOPLE care little about really learning how to use computers and change the way they do things even for the better.
MOST PEOPLE just know how to click this, then that, run a few apps and that is it.
IF that doesn't work for some reason the computer is BROKEN.
Back when I was in the IT business I can't tell you how many times I got a call on a down PC and the only problem was something stupid like a icon was missing from the desktop so they considered it broken. That sums up most people's computer skills. :rolleyes:
 
Using Ubuntu as a distro can you give me an example where you are forced to use the terminal? Most people give terminal commands because it's easier. You can copy and paste instructions and as long as the person has a high enough IQ to cut and paste usually the outcome is a success.

In many ways it's the same with Windows and MacOS. If the crap really does hit the fan with Windows you will need to go to the command line because you may not have a GUI that loads properly.

Like I said, Ubuntu is pretty great in that regard these days but that wasn't always the case. I used to use Ubuntu shortly after it launched and had to completely re-install the OS several times trying to get the GPU drivers to work. It was using a refresh rate that my display couldn't use and so my only option was the terminal. However, trying to get help was also painful as it wasn't nearly as well documented (for the layman) as it is these days. In that regard, windows is so much more elegant IMO. You can usually fix most issues with a little poking around if you understand the basics of hardware/software. With Linux, you need to be a borderline expert (or know someone who is).

I'm glad to say that the last time I installed it, it found all of my hardware and I didn't need to install anything extra. That's not the case with every distro though
 
Oh good grief... another Linux v Windows fight. Each OS has its strengths. Whatever they ran on XP could still run on Win7/8 or Server 2008/2012, it also could run just as well in Linux. OS's are like Swiss Army knives. There is always a correct tool for opening a can of beans. One is not better than the other, each is only as good as the user using it. Operating systems are the same way.

2.png
 
I have to say in my experience I'd have to agree with at least the first three points. Spot on.

I remember a couple of years ago I posted that Linux would be so much nicer if the Linux Community of experts was much more accommodating and less aggressive to new folks wanting to learn.

I then got a stream of responses basically stating "We don't get aggressive with pathetic noobs you stupid turd! Why should we take the time to teach noobs stuff?"

It even carried on after I pointed out they were basically proving my point. They didn't get it. It would have been really funny had it not been so sad. Another opportunity lost.
 
Not forcing but MS is certainly shoving users in that direction with both hands, by designing the menus and setup wizard in a way that deceptively hides the local account option, and makes it appear as though Microsoft online account is required to all but the most technically savvy. In Windows 8.0 that had a small little link at the bottom of the setup wizard to create a local account. in 8.1 that's gone and you've got to dig even deeper or play silly games like unplugging your internet connection. Absurd. The apologists that defend this is beyond me.

You mean exactly like apple has done for years now? Where is the outcry about that? I couldn't even turn on an ipad that was given to me without installing iTunes AND creating an apple account. No other option there....

And windows 8.1 is 1 extra click to get to the local account option. That's it, no unplugging your network cable or anything else. Have you ever even used win 8/8.1 or are you literally just regurgitating shit you read in other posts/threads...
 
Have you ever even used win 8/8.1 or are you literally just regurgitating shit you read in other posts/threads...

This is most of the problem.

"My mom's hairdresser's brothers' gardener said....."
 
I'm a server admin for a small website. We use Linux on all our servers. My kids' computer runs Ubuntu 12.04, my wife and I run Win 7, I run Win 7 at work, my boss runs OSX (and he does a lot of the same kind of work as me).

Here are my reasons not to use Linux:
1) Flash is broken and isn't going to be fixed. (gee, thanks, adobe!)
2) Video card drivers are *still* a mess. Everything else I've ever plugged in has worked out of the box.
3) It's not what most people are used to.
4) (not for me, but for some) Excel, Visual Studio, Adobe applications

That's it. As for the rest of the complaints about linux:
1) Annoying users - that may be, but chances are your question has already been asked and answered, and you fail at google.
2) Command line - unless you're doing something unusual, this isn't an issue
3) Ugly/clunky/etc - I agree the themes in Ubuntu are lacking, but it's mostly just "you're not used to it"
 
I love Ubuntu though. Its got serious legs , its got a simplified interface and its very "unlinux" like in how it does backround processes.

I liked Ubuntu up until they introduced the "Unity Interface" at which point I found it practically unusable, and I started - instead - using one of the Gnome2 workalikes (Mate & Cinnamon). I haven't had it installed for a while now, so I forget which one it was I liked the most. One was based off of actual Gnome2 code, and th eother was based off of gnome3 code, but modified to work like Gnome2. That is the one I think I preferred.

I - for one - find I can to server-like tasks (configuring, setting up, etc. etc.) so much easier on a linux box than on a Windows box. It's easy to search for and edit text config files. It's a pain in the ass to click through non searchable tabs after tabs of gui configuration screens.

I also feel like a GUI has no place on a server. it just wastes resources that could be used for something else.

As far as a desktop environment goes, I like Linux, but I think it's biggest problem today is third party support. Companies releasing good drivers for it, and software vendors releasing their software for it. There are usually good open source alternatives for most things you'd want to do, but if you are used to the original, they won't measure up.

I'm hoping SteamOS will put the push behing driver development for Linux, especially for video cards, and once more deployments are out there, software vendors will take notice. SteamOS could be one of the best things to ever happen to desktop Linux, whether you use it or not.

I don't use desktop linux anymore, because Windows has gotten more stable and secure since the bad old days and it's easier to have one OS, than multiples to dual boot between for different tasks, but if ore software became available on th eLinux side, I'd seriously entertain going back.

For servers - on the other hand - there is no substitute.
 
article said:
Reason #1: As soon as you mention one distro, all the fanboys go insane claiming you've made the wrong choice.


This is the dumbest reason ever.

If this were such a big deal, it would also be an argument against building enthusiast/gaming rigs. As soon as you mention a CPU or GPU model, somene jumps in and tells you you've made the wrong choice.

Same thing goes for cellphones and cars, and to a certain extent beer.

Fanboys exist in every enthusiast community.
 
I had hoped "Wow, perhaps this would be a discussion of technical merits of leading edge versions of Windows alongside certain Linux distros, with thoughtful apples-to-apples comparisons of varying tasks". And then I saw ZDNet, and the "linux fans are crazy" garbage.

Sigh.

So varieties of "The user base is full of jerks", "There's too many options", a" My super specific software that I absolutely must need doesn't run perfectly on Linux", and to close with a "I just think Windows looks prettier". All just bursting with the exact same poorly thought out ideas and outright hostility that he ascribes to the "basement dwelling, non-showering" Linux userbase.

*facepalm*

Jesus.

Now the funny part is, nobody is going to critique the entire Windows community because this one particular guy is an uninformed, hostile jerk. There's some growing up to do...

In other words, he speak bad of my favorite OS, he jerk! :rolleyes: I am reading some of these posts and find exactly what he is saying in this thread alone. The user base has not changed and even I have a life I like to lead that does not include constantly trying to get something to work with an OS it is not intended for. ;)
 
You mean exactly like apple has done for years now? Where is the outcry about that? I couldn't even turn on an ipad that was given to me without installing iTunes AND creating an apple account. No other option there....

And windows 8.1 is 1 extra click to get to the local account option. That's it, no unplugging your network cable or anything else. Have you ever even used win 8/8.1 or are you literally just regurgitating shit you read in other posts/threads...

I think the preview of 8.1 there was no option to sign in with anything other than a Microsoft account and there was a number of blogs that mentioned disconnecting for the network to avoid using the Microsoft account.

What I do find interesting about some of this is that there's this dichotomy where users are considered incapable of figuring out the new UI, and there are problems there on the desktop I agree, but these same people will understand the difference between a local and Microsoft and are clamoring for the one that won't sync up emails or apps or anything and make setting up the PC harder generally?
 
I don't think the free argument holds much water anymore either. I can get a shiny new copy of Windows 7 home premium well south of a hundred bucks. That's pennies compared to the upgrades most of us cram into our rigs over time, and a hassle free operating system to boot.

Less time tinkering= more time playing, and my free time is limited.
 
I don't think the free argument holds much water anymore either. I can get a shiny new copy of Windows 7 home premium well south of a hundred bucks. That's pennies compared to the upgrades most of us cram into our rigs over time, and a hassle free operating system to boot.

Less time tinkering= more time playing, and my free time is limited.
I got my 3 copies of windows 8/8.1 pro for 15 bucks each smart shopping is good shopping
 
I don't think the free argument holds much water anymore either. I can get a shiny new copy of Windows 7 home premium well south of a hundred bucks. That's pennies compared to the upgrades most of us cram into our rigs over time, and a hassle free operating system to boot.

Less time tinkering= more time playing, and my free time is limited.

It's been long understood that typically the big cost in software isn't in attainment but ownership. The average cost of a Windows client license that comes on a new PC just isn't that much money over the life of the device.
 
Back
Top