You never hear of "my Ubuntu just crashed on me!" or "Ubuntu gave me a BSOD (a crash that you can't recover from").
You simply don't have as many problems in Ubuntu!
Because they don't just throw their code in a blender and except it to work!
(CAN IT BLEND? WINDOWS CODE!)
yeah, wait about a year or so THEN get Vista, i'm sure all of the bugs will be kinked out. Kind of like the same thing that happened with XP. Meh, i never used XP until a year after it was released, i use 98SE =P
| |
Well, don't be so sure. Upgrading to Feisty uncovered a bunch of driver issues related to my computer model, and both my CD driver and audio are on the fritz. This has caused two kernel panics (the linux version of the BSOD, for the uninitiated) and quite a lot of error messages since the upgrade. The only reason that I am keeping my system like it is, rather than going back to the slightly older version of Ubuntu that worked just fine, is that I want to help the guys at Ubuntu figure out what went wrong. I'm getting pretty fed up in the process, though! It seems similar to what some Vista adopters are going through. :-)
| |
Same here. My dad decided to install Feisty Fawn, so I had to partition the drive and he installed Ubuntu on the PC. It's really great aside from it not being able to read CDs from the drive. That, and I can't find any drivers for my graphics card.
| |
Well; no one said beta's were perfect :)
I still say Ubuntu is much better in terms of stability. The ONLY problem I have with my current PC, is that it's fan won't turn on when it's hot, so it kind of.. shuts down without warning (thank god!) I'm going to get a gateway laptop soon, and I'm just praying that it works completely. | |
Well, try to figure out what the south bridge on your motherboard, if you can get the correct drivers it will probably start regulating the fans correctly. Also, you motherboard might have some sort of a auto-fan control. I know mine does, and it does a pretty good job of regulating the fans, without OS intervention.
My laptop fans wont go unless I'm using OpenGL. It is kinda annoying, because it can get pretty hot, but I haven't tested it with a fresh install of 7.04 yet, but I plan on it soon enough. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
I still say Ubuntu is much better in terms of stability. Linux on it's own is better in terms of stability. Windows is just better in terms of easy-to-use. I'm willing to bet that Windows is the most used OS because of the following reasons: 1) Every computer/laptop you buy comes installed with Windows. (Linux users: You have to actually pay for that pre-installed version of Linux you're never going to use!) 2) The people are ignorant and don't know about the existance of Linux, because it can't be advertised as much as Microsoft can advertise Windows. 3) As I said before, it's easy-to-use. You don't have to know anything about X servers, root access and a command-line interface in order to perform basic troubleshooting. Instead, you constantly use a GUI. | |
Yeah and I can agree that these complaints might be valid. But you also need to understand that even with these complaints a lot of Windows users may ever even have problems with Windows.
Most of your complaints are invalid to me, I don't have problems with them. My machine rarely crashes, if ever. And even if it does have a hiccup every 3 months or so, I just reboot, that is about as much trouble as I have. You are sitting here trying to make it look much more worse then what it is. Really, you Linux users are almost as bad as any religious cult. | |
I have always known about Linux and I even tried it once. I didn't like it and I don't intend to use it on my personal machine. Now if I were to ever run a web server or host a game for any extended amount of time I would look to get a Linux machine just for that purpose, since Linux is more secure then other OSes. But that just might be because no one uses it. ;)
| |
Crashed wrote:
Windows 2000 will run on 300 MHz and 64 MB of RAM. If you don't think a P4 and 1 GB is a lot for minimal system requirements then you're screwed. Thats just plain bloated, Windows XP can run with as little as 7MHz and 20MB of ram. | |
Nick231 wrote:
Thats just plain bloated, Windows XP can run with as little as 7MHz and 20MB of ram. Er, what? Not usably, it won't. If XP can run on that system (which I doubt) then 2000 certainly could. 2000 is less bloated than XP. | |
Crispy wrote:
Nick231 wrote: Well, usability is debatable. I remember back in the day when we had to walk 15 miles uphill both ways (in 3 feet of snow non the less) just to get to the nearest computer... If XP can run on that system (which I doubt) then 2000 certainly could. 2000 is less bloated than XP. XP can indeed. 2000 probably would, and I'm sure Vista wouldn't end up needing too much more (I'd imagine even the 8MHz/20MB machine would even run it, albeit even slower than XP, it would just depend on if Vista would support an ISA graphics card). | |
Nick231 wrote:
Well, usability is debatable. I remember back in the day when we had to walk 15 miles uphill both ways (in 3 feet of snow non the less) just to get to the nearest computer... =P Maybe your standards are lower than mine, but I don't consider 100% idle CPU usage and a boot time of half an hour to be "usable". Okay, so it runs, but just try checking your email... | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
since Linux is more secure then other OSes. But that just might be because no one uses it. ;) Exactly. Because Linux isn't popular, it's secure: nobody wants to write viruses and other crap for it because it's not the most used. And now you want to come in here and demand that Linux be popular? It's just going to shift the issues you're having with Windows to Linux-based operating systems. It's not like it'll magically make everyone happy. | |
But that just might be because no one uses it. ;) The vast majority of webservers run linux - roughly 70%, in fact. Roughly 10% runs Windows. That 10% is attacked more often and is cracked more often then the 70% of Linux webservers. Wanna rethink that idea? | |
3) As I said before, it's easy-to-use. You don't have to know anything about X servers, root access and a command-line interface in order to perform basic troubleshooting. Instead, you constantly use a GUI. Really? Actually /troubleshooting/ a Windows computer is just as difficult as Linux. Running it is just as easy - most Linux distros come with X set up so that everything just installs when you hit the buttons. And then you can point and click, just like windows. But if your windows computer starts doing something weird? If you're good enough to figure out and fix that (Which could involve things as varied as messing with registry keys to downloading a hotfix), you're good enough to handle a CLI. Calling up a tech, however, requires no effort. | |
Security-through-obscurity has been disproved so many times it isn't popular. This old chestnut is just wrong - the proof is right in front of you.
Most of the internet runs on linux servers. The few windows servers get broken more often. | |
Jp wrote:
But that just might be because no one uses it. ;) As of April 2nd, out of 113 Million web servers, 31.13% were running Microsoft IIS. Microsoft IIS has also had a significant increase in usage over the past year, with Apache having a fairly large decrease, and everything else with little usage (less than 2%). | |
I can't make it any clearer. I'm using it right now for the record.