Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of Windows and Linux article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Articles for deletion
This article was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] i18n and i10n table.

I plan a table on this. The main sections are:

[edit] Install time language selection

Most retail Windows allow for a 1-off selection of language for the installation and OS but this cannot be altered subsequently. Installation media may only be localised into one language. With Windows it is difficult to obtain a language other than the local language of the country you are located in.

Most retail Linux distribution allow for language selection at installation time and allow for subsequent selection on a per-user basis. Smaller distributions may only be localised into a few languages and some purpose-specific distributions may only be available in English.

The trend is changing on this one. With MUI technology (base for xp/2003 x64, for example), you are really always installing the English version, plus a i18n/l10n add-on; and you can add more (which could cost you more money, but nobody said Windows was free.) It was a bit unstable back with Win2000 (been there, done it, still using it), but now it is mature, and I am under the impression it comes as standard with Vista [citation needed]. AntoineL 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For Vista, straight from the source:

With additional language files, you can change the display language on your computer so that you can view wizards, dialog boxes, menus, Help topics, and other items in Windows in a different language. There are two types of language files:

  • Windows Vista Multilingual User Interface Pack (MUI).‌ Windows Vista MUIs provide a translated version of most of the user interface. MUIs require a license to be used and are only available with Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows Vista Enterprise.
  • Windows Vista Language Interface Pack (LIP).‌ Windows Vista LIPs provide a translated version of the most widely used areas of the user interface. LIPs are freely available for download on the Microsoft website, and most LIPs can be installed and used on any edition of Windows Vista. Because not all of the user interface is translated, LIPs require at least one parent language. The parts of the user interface that are not translated into the LIP language are displayed in the parent language. When you download a LIP, you are given the parent language requirements for that language. The parent language pack needs to be installed before the LIP can be installed.
-- simxp (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, *again* Microsoft ignore multi-language retail customers. Few retail clients will have Windows Vista Ultimate or Windows Vista Enterprise. The LIPs seem to be minor languages: obviously culturally important but not as prevalent in say Europe. I guess now that the MUI additional languages are possible to download via Windows update it was worth the 5 year wait for Vista but pity you would have to buy a new PC and the most expensive version. Ttiotsw 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runtime language selection

Most retail Windows cannot allow per-user selection on the language at logon for menus and dialogs. Other versions of Windows can allow per-user selection of the language but the Multi-language extensions are not available through normal retail channels.

Most retail Linux distribution allow per-user selection on the language at logon for menus and dialogs. Smaller distributions may only be localised into a few languages and some purpose-specific distributions may only be available in English.

[edit] Localisation (i10n)

Windows is localised into all major languages.

Linux distributions on the whole are localised into all major languages.

Obviously need some cites to pad this out. Applications are a separate issue (Microsoft allow download of Multilanguage extentions for Office but not the OS. Basically Windows is very poor on multi-language for the retail market e.g. bi-lingual families can only use Windows XP Pro with Multi-language extensions - a combination of software which is rarely, if ever, made available view retail channels.). Ttiotsw 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good so far. I think you should do it, and we'll help you edit it. you're right though, it needs citations and stuff. Keep the good ideas coming!! Hendrixski 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree about the note about the retail market, clearly the MUI technology was not thought for bilingual family but rather for multilingual enterprises! OTOH, to manage a server the localized look-and-feel of Windows may be seen as more user-friendly (this is often quoted as a problem, since it allows more people to "manage" the server, for example in a small business, so more option to mess it up...) AntoineL 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backwards Compatibility

In the "Backward compatibility between releases" section, the entry for "Windows" is: "The new Windows Vista "API implementation is not backward compliant with XP" [30]"; where the reference is an MSDN blog. Upon visiting the blog in question, it turns out the original quote was actually "...API implementation is not perfectly backward compliant with XP..."; which is quite different, I'm sure you'll agree. Not only that, but the quote in question is from a semi-anonymous commenter (a first name but no profile, link, homepage, or email). I think if an MSDN blog is referenced in a quote, it should be reasonably to assume the quote in question if from the blog author rather than a anonymous comment about 100-200 comments after the article! I can't see any way to make that quote not ridiculously misleading, so I'm removing it; the Slashdot link about SQL server should be sufficient to point out application compatibility issues. Also, "Backwards Compatibility within a release: Was high priority before Windows Vista"? At the very least, I'm adding a citation needed tag to that; if anyone has a quote from anyone at Microsoft that backwards compatibility wasn't high priority with Vista, please link to it; my experience suggests the exact opposite (e.g. shims were specifically added to Vista in order to make the Miktex 2.5 executables work). Simxp 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Catch! thank you. As for the shift away from backwards compatibility, I remember Joel Spolsky (CEO of fog bugz) had a few posts talking about how his business was adapting to the new stream of non-backwards compatible products that were coming out of Microsoft. He went on to praise the efforts of the old microsoft which had unprecedented and by todays standards unimaginably good backwards compatibility. I'll see if I can't find that and put it there. --hendrixski —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.60.182 (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
After a month with nothing cited by anyone, It's becoming more clear that the sentence has nothing to support it whatsoever. The Joel on Software page is talking about backward compatibility between releases (which has its own row in the table), not backward compatibility within a release. I am removing the statement unless anyone can cite anything that implies backward compatibility within a release is now less of a priority in Vista. Simxp 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Language challenge

I'm posting a translation of parts of this article on the Polish Wikipedia. I was born in Poland but came to the US when I was 4, so I'm a little rusty seeing as how that was 20+ years ago. I challenge you to translate this page into any other languages you know, even if you're foggy on how to write in them, like me. I'll be working on the Polish Page for a while, and then maybe try the French page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hendrixski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Installation

It is my opinion that certain facts presented in the installation section of this article, although are perfectly true, are not clear, complete and/or adequately represented. For example, while the "Ease of Install" section of the article explains "Varies greatly by distribution. Some distributions require source to be copied and compiled by hand whereas some have a very user-friendly GUI.", which is completely true, it seems to imply (at least to me) that beginners may need to compile it, and also that a good fraction of users running Linux compiled Linux. Although I have compiled LFS before (Don't. Trust me.), I don't see to many Linux computers running Gentoo or LFS. I believe that it should be worded, to prevent this issues, as following: "Varies greatly be distribution. Many have a very simple and easy-to-use installation process, while certain advanced distributions require compilation.", as this more adequately represents reality. Another example is the Install Time. It is not noted that a Linux installation is generally much more complete then a Windows Installation. It should also be noted that with short installation times, there is generally less content (for example Damn Small Linux may install in 6 minutes, but it doesn't have very many programs.) My last comment (for now) for Installation time is that Installation time is Computer Specific. Many of the sections of this article may contain similar styles and/or problems. --Trintith

On a similar trend, the point about "Install time" being one hour for Windows (which is true for NT-2000-xp-2003 starting from the blue screen, and in fact is usually higher since you are almost required to go to Windows Update before doing anything else) cannot be directly compared to the "can range from 6 minutes to over an hour" of Linux. With image preparation, it is perfectly possible to install Windows in 20-30 minutes; and this is not a difficult task, many system administrators do that when they have to deal with several hundred of computers. Furthermore, Windows PE (or BartPE) installs in much less time, similar to DSL's 6 minutes in my experience. As a result, there is no much point to do here, we are likely to see much more volatility between the actual cases, than differences between Linux and Windows.
By the way, using LFS installation lasts several hours unless automatized (and even so, you have to download an awful lot of packages), so "over an hour", while factually correct, can be easily misunderstood... LFS really is a very good way to learn Linux (Do. Trust Me. ;-)), but as Trintith I do not believe it is much used as installation method for someone's general-use desktop. (Don't.) AntoineL 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, things in the installation section are different now then when I saw before. Sorry for the drasticly oversized comment (: But yeah, AntoineL, I did learn a ton about linux with LFS... Thanks for responding! --Trintith
I think it's not fair to compare the installation time of a complete desktop installation of GNU with the installation of a plain Windows. If we want to compare what is comparable, we must compare the minimal installation of a GNU system (e.g. with a minimal X and KDE selection) or the complete installation of desktops in business or in private. --mms 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux & Windows templates

{{Linux}} Is there a good reason why this article currently has the Linux template, but not the Windows one? They do serve somewhat different purposes (the Linux one is comprised of links to Linux-related articles, the Windows one of links to the different versions of Windows), but even so, it seems a strange imbalance. If a rebalancing is deemed to be necessary I personally think the Linux template should be removed rather than the Windows one added: after all, this isn't exactly a page about a particular aspect of Linux (though I realise that this page is mentioned in the template, so its presence on this page is useful for navigation). In any case, I throw the question (and the templates) out here for discussion. -- Simxp 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a biased Linux user and I even agree that this skews the equal weight of the page. +1 for its removal. Altonbr (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add a {{windows}} template but it didn't seem to exist so I removed the {{linux}} one to improve the neutrality, if we can't have both then we can't have either Lovefist233 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair

I think this is the least biased comparison of Windows and Linux I have ever seen, good job people Lovefist233 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Parts still need work, but it's honestly not bad. Dave Indech 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes -- although I do have to admit myself rather dubious about this part of your latest addition -- "Linux users are less susceptible to social engineering [than Windows users]" fundamentally carries the implication that Linux users are more intelligent than Windows users; which is emphatically not a statement that an encyclopedia should be making, and certainly not without a citation. I'm going to remove that statement for now. -- simxp (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
We should distinguish between ignorance and intelligence. I make no comment on intelligence. I think it's clear, though, that Windows users on the whole are more ignorant of the kinds of malware threats and how to avoid them. I've taken no straw poll, but the sheer number of zombie Windows computers and unaware users should be adequate evidence. Merely taking the time to learn an alternate OS paradigm acribes a higher plane of computer knowledge to Linux users. I think the statement should stay, though perhaps with more specificity. Dave Indech 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree actually, the wording is clearly biased towards Linux In my opinion. I think it probably needs a going through and rewording at some point to truly be NPOV.Funny little guy 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
i second the fact that much more windows users are morons. anyone running linux has to know a thing or two about computers, without a gui shell, linux is unusable except by pros. iv seen windows users forcibily ramming CD's into floppy drives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think as a whole it is still very fair. I put a lot of work into cleaning it up. Though some sections have started drifting towards a pro-windows bias... and some of the boxes are getting too long. Hendrixski 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fairness of this article has degraded significantly since my last visit Lovefist233 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-installed software

I believe that the pre-Installed software section gives examples for pre-installed software in Windows but not in Linux. I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that this can and should be fixed even though pre-installed software can vary drastically between Linux distribution, a few examples from a general-use desktop like Ubuntu could be given, right? I attempted to fix this a bit ago, but it was changed back. Sorry if my thoughts are not helpful, or if I'm simply wrong, just trying to help. --Trintith

I think these categories don't fit GNU. There are (mostly) very few packages which are obligatory to be installed. But the whole distribution consist of very many provided software. Windows on the other hand doesn't even provide a minimal set of software which enables the user to do anything usefull which his system. The Windows user I know always install a few hours the additional software they want when installing Windows. The term »pre-installed software« makes sense if you compare different proprietary operating systems which are immanently more limited in the provided software. --mms 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but what it really looks like is that Microsoft bribes hardware manufacturers to install windows in their computers. Other than that, I just can't see why anyone would put such an inferior and troublesome OS in their computers. Maxhaase (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming

In this section wherein a mention of 10-25% performance hit is taken, is picking and choosing from amongst the Wine statistics. This seems biased to me; I get better performance on Linux. Any other thoughts?Spacedwarv 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The side of the performance gain depends on the program you execute. For example Diablo II on Wine on GNU/Linux is noticeable more speedy. Microsoft Office on the other hand isn't executable on Wine at all ─ not that one would want to do this. --mms 11:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I played Unreal tournament on Ubuntu 7.04 with latest Wine .943, and the performance hit was around 30%, i was not able to play it at high detail as compared to Windows 98SE, both in openGL and Directx mode. And its not just the gaming, XFCE4 also lags behind in many ways + Linux's native programs like Firefox lag on Linux as compared to Windows. Acetylcholine 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unreal Tournament 2004 has a dedicated Linux install. I get better fps/general performance in Ubuntu than in XP on the same machine. It really does depend what you are trying to run and on what machine. Gaylapdancer (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I find that native linux games can sometimes be faster, however those are few and far between. Games running on WINE do not perform better for me, in my experiances.AbJ32 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux - not an operating system

The first line shows this: "Comparison of Windows and Linux (two computer operating systems)". However, Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system. A more correct way would be to write GNU/Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.93.137 (talk • contribs) 15:22, Jul. 12. 2007 (CET)

Anyone who is actually interested in this topic would know that the term "linux" tends to represent the wide array of distros available, not any one piece of software. Trying to compare Linux as a kernel to Windows would be as pointless as trying to compare Open Office to Windows Media Player- We have to look at the entire package to actually get a perspective. --Laugh! 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes comparing the kernel Linux to the entire windows would be pointless. Watch the first 5min here to understand how important it is to call it GNU/Linux: http://taurine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/files/rms-talk.ogg Just because some people think the entire OS is called Linux doesn't mean wikipedia should do the same mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.89.75 (talk • contribs) 20:45, Jul. 20. 2007 (CET)
See also GNU/Linux naming controversy, the controversy surrounding the name of Linux operating systems. Windows is also not an operating system but the name of several families of operating systems. We try to compare these two families of operating systems in the article. Anyway, I remain of the conviction that the operating system commonly known as Linux is a GNU variant and should therefore be called GNU or GNU/Linux (if you have the time). --mms 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not use terms simply because they are advocated by special interest groups. See also the numerous Talk:Linux archives. — arcsec(x) 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am a GNU advocate myself, but I must disagree on that one. Wikipedia should call things what people call them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. It is irrelevant how "correct" GNU/Linux is. People call the OS "Linux", and such it should be called in Wikipedia. It is undeniable that a vast majority of people use "Linux", and much fewer use "GNU/Linux". I advocate for pragmatism here. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree on that for Wikipedia but not for the real life. Also in Wikipedia there should be exceptions in some article which concern free software. The name GNU/Linux should be provided as an alternative term on every article which meantions the “Linux system”. --mms 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Shouldn't wikipedia call things exactly what they are and NOT what people call them? People tend to get things wrong you know. 75.118.57.4 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps stating at the top of the article that there is a dispute about the use of the name "Linux" and providing a link to GNU/Linux naming controversy and then continue to use "Linux" throughout the rest of this article (because it's shorter and people will better understand it), would be a fair solution? --Shne (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Linux is not an operating system. We should not call it Linux because people call it that. *That* is original research. I call a water fountain a bubbler, do you? Should we change the official name of water fountain to bubbler then, because thats what people call it?--WhereAmI (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the way it's used in the article makes it perfectly adequately clear that "Linux" is not being used to mean "the Linux kernel", but rather, as a contraction of "a Linux distribution". The use of "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" would actually make things considerably worse, since "GNU/Linux" is clearly not a contraction of "a Linux distribution"; so its usage would imply that we're just talking about the kernel combined with GNU software, which is rubbish: large amounts of a modern Linux distro are neither the kernel nor GNU (X11, for one!). Also, to claim that "GNU/Linux" is somehow "the official name" is nonsense, when neither any Linux distro vendors (except Debian) nor Linus Torvalds (!) call it that. Again, see GNU/Linux naming controversy -- simxp (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias sounding numbers

Spyware and malware Windows: Over 11,000 malware programs surfaced in 2005 alone. Linux: Only 800 were ever witnessed. Mostly browser-based, identical to the ones targeting windows (toolbars, extensions etc.)

The words "Over" and "Only" sound like judgements. Buy now Cheap! Only 4,99! Better would be something like: MS Windows is targetted with an increasing number of malware programs. 1995, so many, 1996 so many, 1997 etc etc. (...snip...) 2005 more then 11,000 malware programmes have been identified to target the MS Windows OS and MS prop. programs. Next colum:Since the inception of Linux in 198X about 800 malware programs targetting Linux OS have been identified. Numbers should be factual and falsifiable. Aixroot 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article puts a shame on Wikipedia

I have never seen such a biased article on Wikipedia before. Countless number of misleading facts. OK, you're pissed off at Windows' monopoly and et cetera but no need to distort basic facts. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.147.157 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article gave me an impression that Linux is better than Windows in many ways but when i tried, it was only a waste of my time. I believe Linux is not yet ready for desktop usage but with more GUI front ends and graphical settings panels it will be ok for average users to use and boast about. I am not a programmer just a user. Acetylcholine 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to sound harsh, but "I believe..." is not, in general, very useful in the formation of good, verifiable Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, If you have a reliable source that makes a relevent point that is not in the article, or you believe that any of the sources the article currently cites are unreliable or are being misrepresented, then by all means Be Bold and make the change! -- simxp (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I used " i believe" more for the second part of the sentence: more GUI, wising Linux best of luck. I am a non-techie person and have just expressed my opinion. Acetylcholine 09:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows, GNU/Linux market share

The first column describing the market share is misleading to extent looking almost malicous.

  1. The market share figures are from "Net Applications" contrary to what is written in the notes column "According to W3C, May 2006, judged by web traffic on a technology site.[11]"
  2. The notes part says that W3C Judged this and the link is to a W3Schools web statistics. W3Schools is not affilated with The World Wide Web Consontium in any manner. One is an authority in setting standards for the web while other is a private entity. AFAIK, W3C does not release any browser statistics.
  3. The reference note 11, again misleads us to think that statics released by W3Schools are done by World Wide Web Constortium.
  4. It would be good to note that there is no 100% correct way to measure these statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Mohan (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed (diff) -- simxp (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NTPermissions.png

Image:NTPermissions.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed (expanded rationale) -- simxp (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress from last year

Just a note: Let's not forget the progress we've made since this time last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux&oldid=92015824. It's a vast improvement to me, so this is just a reminder to keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update comparison

Windows update can update the system, some microsoft software and drivers In Linux updates can be for all not commercials softwares, and drivers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.152.89.248 (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Template

Can we have this article in a different format? Its a great piece of work, but I fail to see why it is part of the series on Linux as opposed to Windows? Having the Linux logo and a list of Linux links does not seem very fair to me. I would do this myself but am not sure how. Martinwas 12:59, 28 Januray 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

This article is heavily biased. Probably written by a Linux addict. Needs a rewrite. Removed from the Linux Category since this is not about anything specific on Linux. Remember, wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinion, rather an encyclopedia to give knowledge to those who doesn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.23.184 (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was not written by any one person; but rather by many hundreds of Wikipedia editors working together in collaboration. If you believe it to be biased (and it is certainly very far from perfect); then join in and help improve it! -- simxp (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux web server share, Netcraft survey

I have removed the link to Netcraft's February 2008 web server survey a few times. The survey says:

Apache continues to climb back, now reaching nearly 51% of the market share...

Nowhere in the article does it mention Linux. Yes - Apache runs on Linux. But it also runs on lots of other operating systems.

I'm sorry - the Netcraft reference is a great argument for Apache, but is not appropriate for this article. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Walter,
I was actually arguing against the NetCraft figure--I was arguing that Linux has only around a 13% share in the server market (based on Worldwide Server Market Experiences Modest Growth in Fourth Quarter as Market Revenues Reach Seven-Year High in 2007, According to IDC), while Novell/Unix has around 33% (idim). I don't see any point of contention about this fact. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well maybe I removed your stuff accidentally (collateral damage.) I only have a problem with the Netcraft information. I'll take a look at my edits in a moment. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the IDC source was re-added. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The myths

1- Windows is easier to use than Linux.
This is one of the most believed myths in the world. In fact, if a person begins using Linux right off the start an one day he or she has to use windows for some reason, that person is likely to encounter an operating system that lacks not only functionality, but is also expensive to own.

2- Windows dominates the world.
Nothing could be further from the true. With almost 75% of the Internet server market, UNIX systems (such as Linux) have and always have had a clear advantage over any other OS. The 21% achieved by Microsoft is probably related to myth 1. Even Microsoft runs their beloved live.com on BSD.

3- Windows is faster than Linux
All operating systems have a number of flaws. However, when it comes to performance, the way windows stores data on disc results in it becoming slower and slower and not lasting very long before it is time to re-install windows. Somewhere in this page, some talk about how difficult it is to install an OS, however, they forgot to consider how often it needs to be re-installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxhaase (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already goes into most of those points in some detail. Also, presenting information in the way you have would be a rather heavy WP:NPOV violation. Not to mention that quite a lot of it is either misleading or wrong -- e.g., "Microsoft runs live.com on BSD"? Nope, Windows Server 2003; Netcraft confirms it. They did experience delayes migrating the original Hotmail from BSD when they first bought it; but that was 7 years ago; see the "Unsourced POV-pushing content" paragraph on this very page for more details. -- simxp (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced POV-pushing content

I will continue to remove this content unless sources are added:

  • "Some Linux installations are so simple that they even lack a documented installation guide (Live CD). <ref>http://ubuntu.com No installation guide</ref>"
  • "Most Linux distributions will install together with an array of applications and device drivers, in a few mouse clicks and one reboot."
    • My only problem with this sentence is the "in a few mouse clicks" claim. Please provide a source.
  • "With an available Internet connection, Linux installations download both the latest available drivers and applications from an on-line repository, eliminating the need of proprietary software discs."
    • All Linux installations do this? Please provide a source.
  • "Not even Microsoft is able to run mission critical applications using Windows."
    • If Hotmail still runs on FreeBSD, I see nothing in the Hotmail article to suggest that's due to reliability issues.

WalterGR (talk | contributions) 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the Hotmail/BSD thing: Back in 2001, MS admitted that the migration of Hotmail from BSD to Windows 2000 had been problematic, and that a number of parts of Hotmail still ran on BSD. However, given that they've now had 8 years, during which Hotmail has grown hugely in size, been relaunched about three times, and now makes heavy use of .NET for AJAX, I very much doubt there's still any BSD in there. But I suppose only Microsoft knows for sure. The issue was complicated by the fact that a number of Microsoft web sites back in 2003 used a company called Akamai to do their load balancing for them. Amamai used Linux on their servers; so every so often some naive tech news site would plug Microsoft.com into Netcraft and publish an "OMG Microsoft websites run of Linux!!!11one1!" story, and which rather confused the issue. -- simxp (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just Linux or Unixes too?

Given that a huge amount of the arguments for or against Linux would also apply to other Unix derivatives (BSD, OS X, Solaris etc etc), perhaps it would make the article more useful if it was "Comparison of Windows and Unix-likes"? While certain things like the open source arguments would not apply to all Unix-likes, they would still apply to many (if not most), most of the security arguments etc apply to all Unix-likes which have similar security concepts, etc... Just a thought for broadening the article and making it less specialised, anyway :) Xmoogle (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a Comparison of operating systems article. It doesn't cover the same territory as this article, but for comparing several things at once, I'd wager the format used there is more appropriate. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Pirated Windows copies"

Am I alone here who, reading the phrase "pirated windows copies", assumes that perhaps those Somalian pirates found some Windows CDs on that French yacht they have attacked? Is it not correct that in the English language "pirates" are those who plunder at sea, while people who steal from the shops are called "thieves"?

I am not a native English speaker, admittedly, and must have missed some recent language development -- Aremith, is it true that nowadays one "steals" a computer without any software, but "pirates" a computer with a copy of Windows on it? Interesting... (85.81.116.15 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

ahh, ok, found the wikipedia article about "the copyright infringement of software (also known as software piracy)"... well, Aremith, you seem to insist on equating armed murderers with people who illegally copy Windows. Is it really constructive? "Stolen copy of widows" and "pirated copy of windows" -- which of these two correctly describe the process of getting a copy of windows by illegally copying a windows-cd? (85.81.116.15 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Localization Section Problem

"In MS Windows user has to change language in every application separately and the whole operating system's user interface supports only the language selected during installation process (Windows Vista), so the only way to change it is to reinstall whole system."

As far as I know, this is incorrect, if 3rd party application is well designed for multi language, such language detection is available. You can change language using the regional language on control panel, language tab, details. You can even use language bar to change keyboard input model. Some common software, such as NVidia Display Drivers and Nero 7 can detect this, such as detecting Language and can also use unicode. There are also separate language interface pack which can be obtained to provide additional language support from windows. As long as the application is designed to do that, you can use multiple language automatically. As far as I know, Windows has been historically known as one of the first regional setting supporters. I myself use English and Japanese language interchangebly for running some Japanese software.

I do not know how Linux works exactly but I also suspect the sentence before that claim:

"It is easy to have multiple languages installed in Linux and to switch between them while the user is logging in. Almost all applications will communicate with the user in the selected language, because they can detect it from the environmental variable LANG."

since as far as I know, all applications should write their own translation for this, and I am not sure whether all applications can have all translations for each language.

Draconins (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That does need rewording as it mixes the OS and the apps. This article is about the OS. Windows is still utter crap when it comes to multiple language families in Europe (i.e. where two parents or the children use 2 languages e.g. English/Italian, French/Italian, German/English, Dutch/English. It is only with Windows Vista Ultimate and the Windows Vista Enterprise that you can have multiple languages. Both of those are generally not pre-installed on retail market PCs. At least better than Windows XP, where the language kits were not even available retail. With GNU/Linux OS then all major distros can easily have multiple languages installed which changes the interface though the coverage really depends upon the distro.
Most application seem to switch or can be switched automatically, if the suitable language file is included, on either OS. It's only with the actual OS itself that the real differences appear and that's all we need to mention. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mac os x

why isn't there a comparsion of windows and os x?More people use macs then linux so it makes more sense ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There was, once. It pretty much entirely a copyvio of http://www.xvsxp.com/. Then it was renamed to "Comparison of Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.4", and cut down until it's only content was a link to http://www.xvsxp.com/. Then it was deleted by unanimous consent for being wholly useless, incoherent, and content-free. Any content it did have was usually additions by Mac fanatics of the order of "Macs are way better than Windows OMG BSODs!!!111one", which were quickly followed by equally witty and erudite contributions from Windows fans; both of which were usually swiftly deleted for being blatantly non-NPOV. For some reason, Windows users and Linux users seem to be much better able to work together in persuit of an unbiased, neutral article than Windows users and Mac users. -- simxp (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have stats for number of MacOS users vs number of Linux users? Linux is used on desktops and servers, and counting user numbers is difficult as older hardware that used to run Windows is retasked to run Linux, and so won't show up in purchase stats. It's possible that MacOS desktop users may outnumber Linux desktop users, but desktop and server Linux users will together outnumber desktop and server MacOS users.87.194.103.254 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One small comment - most of these stats seem to affect the US. Mac uptake outside of the US is not that great. Considering Linux adoption in third world countries (search for Brazil or China migrations for example), and the anecdotal evidence of seeing 0 Macs in several countries I've been (Turkey, Spain, Romania, ...), I'd say that worldwide Linux adoption could be > worldwide Mac adoption. 81.80.239.162 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] which one is the best operating system that can be implemented for university level

hi...i would like to know which one is the best operating system that can be implemented for university level..Windows or Linux?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.91.249 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)