Is Windows bad?

[monkeybrain20122]

What has Apple provided Open Source lately (CUPS was years ago)? Heck, even Google hasn't done too much other than be willing to support Flash in its Chrome browser when Adobe abandons developing for Linux. But have they given Linux users the promised Google Drive and not forced using a 3rd party app? Microsoft is no friend to open source, but heck they are open sourcing .NET recently.

There is a difference between not open sourcing your product and going out of your way to undermine open source competitors. Apple is closed, fine, don't use it and you are free. You don't need to use google drive as there are other options and as far as I know google doesn't go out of its way to make it hard to use alternatives.
MicroSoft is unique in trying to force its proprietary stuffs on you and its tenacles are everywhere, look at the way it screws with document formats and secure boot.

[mattlach]

Windows is EPIC!!

Alright, as you say it isn't open-source but why would you want open-source?

And, yes, there have been some(a lot) of complaints about Windows 8(all rubbish to me), which is strange in my mind because it's beautiful and easy to use, but, to be honest, it depends on what you want it for;

Gaming = Lubuntu because it's lightweight

Programming = Programmers like to use Linux (no idea why)

Surfing the 'net = Windows 8

To sum it up I'd just use Windows all the way.

Bye,
DreddTrekkiter

I don't disagree that for many (most?) people Windows is the best choice, but I think you have your usage scenarios all wrong.

Gaming:
Currently no computer operating system beats Windows from a gaming perspective. Valve is making inroads when it comes to Linux, but the title offerings are just pathetic compared to what is available for Windows. Over time, this may no longer be the case, but currently it is, and probably will be for some time, unless Valve has more success than expected with their SteamOS.

Programming:
You got this one right. Development is much more effective on Linux. Hands down.

Surfing the net:
I'd disagree here. If web browsing and email is all someone cares about, Linux is best here by a wide margin. It uses fewer resources browsing the web than Windows does, at the same time as it is more secure. There was a time when it was impossible to get various web plugins to work in Linux, but that time is thankfully behind us.


Some other usage scenarios to consider:

Content Creation:
While Windows has caught up a lot in the last 15 years, video editing, publishing, graphic work and photography and music creation are still stronger on Macs. Windows is about 95% of OSX here, but Linux falls far behind, with poorly featured work-alikes (Gimp vs. Photoshop, for instance)

General computer/Office work:
You know, Office documents, being able to buy a shrink wrapped piece of software and install it, etc. etc. Windows is still king here. Yes Libre Office (formerly Open Office) and Star Office are better than they've ever been, but they still leave a lot to be desired compared to the real thing, Ms. Office. And nothing beats the broad software compatibility of Windows.


In the Linux community we like to get all hot and bothered about the benefits of Open Source software, etc. etc., but the truth is, this doesn't matter to most people at all.

Most people want something that just works, in which they can run all the software they want when they want without dealing with compatibility layers, emulators, etc. etc. For this, nothing beats Windows. Not OSX, and Linux isn't even close.

Linux has many technical advantages. More efficient use of system resources, better security, more stable, but none of this amounts to a hill of beans to most users if they can't use the exact software they want. The average user does not want to put u with open source work-a-likes. They want their favorite branded closed source software exactly the way they are used to seeing it, and little else matters.

We used to also talk about Linux user friendliness, but that is really not a concern anymore. Linux is just as user friendly as Windows (if not more so) these days, as long as you don't want to do some very specific advanced stuff, that requires finding text config files and editing them, but most users never do this.

For people like me, giving up some software compatibility for a secure, stable and efficient system is worth it. For most it isn't. Desktop (or laptop/whatever) Linux will only be really successful once commercial software is developed for it, just like it is for Windows. Then people will not lose anything by switching, and they might just do it. Until then, it will be in the realm of us ~1% who value that sort of thing.

[RichardET]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with secure boot. as far as .doc formats go, the issue is not Microsoft, its the userland companies who insist on standardizing with MS Office; I work in big pharma - I assure you that none of them will ever use Openoffice over MS office. Thus why should MS waste developer resources supporting standards which are not in its interest, or where it derives zero ROI? Sun originally promoted Openoffice, and of course, since they were well behind #3 in the list of tech companies, they wanted an open doc standard, but I assure you that it was pure hypocrisy.

[Dragonbite]

There is a difference between not open sourcing your product and going out of your way to undermine open source competitors. Apple is closed, fine, don't use it and you are free. You don't need to use google drive as there are other options and as far as I know google doesn't go out of its way to make it hard to use alternatives.
MicroSoft is unique in trying to force its proprietary stuffs on you and its tenacles are everywhere, look at the way it screws with document formats and secure boot.

Microsoft is in no way "unique in trying to force its proprietary stuff on you".

When iPods came out you had to use iTunes and only iTunes. Heck, they didn't want to open it up to Windows users, but they realized that was where the money and adoption was. Open Source reverse-engineered it which worked but each new version of the iPod "broke" whatever worked before and so it would have to be reversed again.

It became a game to watch and see how long it took after each new Apple product released (when they did) for somebody to hack it to work in Linux. Apple didn't provide any of this.

What format does iWork save in? Can .pages be opened in OpenOffice, LibreOffice or even Microsoft Office?

Microsoft has been working with the Samba group lately. They have opened up more parts of C# and are working with Xamarin on cross-platform .NET. They bought Skype and didn't kill it for Linux like so many people thought they would. You can run Linux on their Azure platform. You can connect to Active Directory and Exchange from Linux. OneDrive can be set to automatically save in ODT format instead of Microsoft's own.

Microsoft has worked with SUSE and Red Hat on interoperability.

Both Apple and Microsoft requires you to use their OS to develop for their mobile platform. Chromebooks require Google account to really do anything (other than log in as guest). Even Ubuntu One was only fully integrated in Ubuntu, and was not released to other distributions (though one did work a neat python applications that allowed FTP access to Ubuntu One, but all that's a moot point now). That all sounds like vendor lock-in attempts.

If you don't like Microsoft Office, Active directory, .NET or Azure, then don't use it and you are free. But that doesn't make any company better or worse.

[Eggnog]

Windows is not bad. For every linux installation, I have a Windows VM. But I don't want Windows running my machine, though.

[Gilad_Pellaeon]

I tend to look at Windows and Linux as two different beasts. Linux being the more secure one and Windows being the OS so full of holes and flaws it's no wonder malware spreads like it does. And with Windows 8 ignoring 30+ years of user interface research - http://toastytech.com/guis/win8.html, you definetly know Microsoft doesn't have a clue it seem's. If you're like me and grew up loving computer's since the late 80's and is not afraid of the occasional command line usage and wants to shy away from Microsoft as much as possible then you like Linux a lot and tend to use it a lot more then Windows except where needed for some application that may not run well under a Virtual Machine or WINE, in which case you have a dual boot setup to boot into windows.

Then, on the other hand, you have what I feel IMHO is unfortunately a large sum of the world population, especially at home, who runs Windows, and can't be bothered, or willing, to learn about the dangers of not having a good firewall on windows, perhaps a good anti virus as well even most AV software bogs down the system, and unfortunately, a decent anti-malware scanner to remove the malware they come across, and where do you pick it up?

It's from *ALL* those ad server's on the internet serving up all those wonderful text, picture, flash, and video ad's, often on compromised server's to distribute malicious code as it is to infect windows machines as much as possible. And if they use Internet Explorer then I tend to say "may someone have mercy on your soul" especially when it was recently announced that the US and UK governments have recommended to stop using the IE browser for now.

It's gotten to the point that you literally need to run Mozilla Firefox along with an updated Adblock plus addon, and if you couple that with Noscript and Ghostery you pretty much have a much more pleasant browsing experience, free of ads and free of that code to distribute malicious malware as it is, and with a malware scanner you can in most cases remove crap such as PUP's that tend to crop up even with free windows programs that doesn't always ask your permission whether to install it or not.

So yeah no windows is not open source not by a long shot, it's sure open like a block of swiss cheese with lots of holes for sure. No one except coder's at microsoft can look at the source code for the operating systems, and I suspect it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand has been doing, and has been for years, which result's in a big mess.

And funny thing is, v1.0 of Windows came out in 1985, long before Linux was even created, and honestly I feel if perhap's IBM and Microsoft had stuck together instead of seperating before Windows 3.0 came out, and which for some reason became such a big "hit" with the average joe, then the computing world today may have been somewhat different with perhap's a blend of OS/2 and Windows and an operating system that's not so blatantly screwed over nowaday's with malware and viruses and crapware that literally makes a system unusable that the "average joe" has no clue.

[LastDino]

Windows is not bad, I might not agree with some of MS policies but it is one essential OS which is probably proving to be most helpful in order to spread computer influence worldwide. I used it for like 11 years on my own desktop. Even now, I need windows on my work PC for operating most of the commercial software I need to do my work. Little unrelated but I even prefer using windows phone over android.lol

However, my choice of OS at my home is Linux, and I suggest it to most who come for my advice depending on their requirements and budget.

It is all about what you need and what you prefer.

[Dragonbite]

"The difference is in the source" ... open source I mean.

[Danny_Barbz]

The only advantages I see Windows has over Linux is video editing software and game compatibility.

[RichardET]

I tend to look at Windows and Linux as two different beasts. Linux being the more secure one and Windows being the OS so full of holes and flaws it's no wonder malware spreads like it does. And with Windows 8 ignoring 30+ years of user interface research - http://toastytech.com/guis/win8.html, you definetly know Microsoft doesn't have a clue it seem's. .

what is toastytech?