[Question] - Linux vs Windows Xp

[wolf7448]

Hey,

This may be a stupid question but i'm just wondering,

can someone tell me the real diff between linux and Win Xp? If there is any?

Title Edited - Please follow new posting rules from now on.

--Zxian

Edited December 18, 2005 by Zxian

[Nightlord]

The difference between Linux and Windows XP

is the same as

The difference between creating webpages in Notepad and using Frontpage.

Windows/Frontpage is very user-friendly and allows someone to just jump right in and go to work.

Linux/Notepad is not. Period. You must actually take the time to learn the ins and outs of what you're working with to be able to accomplish anything. Granted, Linux distros are really moving towards making Ma and Pa Kettle able to use them, but at it's heart the Linux operating system is still for geeks.

Because of those two differences, MOST software developers push for the n00b-friendly route since it means a higher customer base. The majority of games and high-end software suites are still Windows only. Thus, if you're looking for a better selection of available software, and/or have no desire to take the time to learn the HOWS of how your system works, go for Windows. If you're not the gamer type and are interested in taking more control of your system, go Linux.

[phatcat42141]

Want to try a very user friendly Linux distro? If yes then go here and they will send you a LiveCD and a full install Version of Ubuntu.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

Edited December 17, 2005 by phatcat42141

[suryad]

Err...not to mention that Linux is much much more efiicient than XP. Linux is way faster than XP in coroporate enviornments. Linux is way more robust in terms of security and has the least amount of bugs in the kernel than any commercial product in bugs per line of of code. Also Linux is totally configurable and if you come up with the greatest and bestest solution for managing resources, threads, task scheduling you can mod the kernel to include your code. You can decide what to stick in and what to take out thus removing bloat. There are lots of distros out there from uber nerd to noob. All in all Linux is great if you are lucky that your hardware and wireless cards are supported and have a lot of patience tweaking everything. It is not user friendly as was pointed out and being that it is open source and most drivers are closed source...those are the two main reasons why people stay away from Linux.

[I_Broke_My_MHZ]

The difference between creating webpages in Notepad and using Frontpage.

That statement is just retarted, but yet, appropriate for the question asked.

Edited December 17, 2005 by I_Broke_My_MHZ

[wolf7448]

The difference between creating webpages in Notepad and using Frontpage.

That statement is just retarted, but yet, appropriate for the question asked.

thx for your very unhelpful 2 cents

But thanks to everyone who helped me learn the diff.

Edited December 17, 2005 by wolf7448

[purg99]

Your question is asking too much

Whats the difference between apple and brick

Ones good for cooking the others good for making homes. Both are good for what they are used for but some arsehole will always favour one over the other. I hate the ethos of saying blindly xyz is better than abc. Sorry if this offends but you will get over it with age.

The best reply to your question is that Windows was written for the mass home market, linux wasnt.

- Three out of three large corporations (Philips, Atos & EDS) ive worked with banned linux from the network via its security police.

- Both Linux and XP can be tweaked and bloated or cut down to a core.

- For a usable (as you know it) home system on a P2 455 - Gentoo used 120Mb, WinXP 190mb.

- From experience both systems update as much as each other but linux will normally be updated quicker.

[wolf7448]

Your question is asking too much

Whats the difference between apple and brick

Ones good for cooking the others good for making homes. Both are good for what they are used for but some arsehole will always favour one over the other. I hate the ethos of saying blindly xyz is better than abc. Sorry if this offends but you will get over it with age.

The best reply to your question is that Windows was written for the mass home market, linux wasnt.

- Three out of three large corporations (Philips, Atos & EDS) ive worked with banned linux from the network via its security police.

- Both Linux and XP can be tweaked and bloated or cut down to a core.

- For a usable (as you know it) home system on a P2 455 - Gentoo used 120Mb, WinXP 190mb.

- From experience both systems update as much as each other but linux will normally be updated quicker.

thank u

[Zxian]

Err...not to mention that Linux is much much more efiicient than XP. Linux is way faster than XP in coroporate enviornments. Linux is way more robust in terms of security and has the least amount of bugs in the kernel than any commercial product in bugs per line of of code. Also Linux is totally configurable and if you come up with the greatest and bestest solution for managing resources, threads, task scheduling you can mod the kernel to include your code. You can decide what to stick in and what to take out thus removing bloat. There are lots of distros out there from uber nerd to noob. All in all Linux is great if you are lucky that your hardware and wireless cards are supported and have a lot of patience tweaking everything. It is not user friendly as was pointed out and being that it is open source and most drivers are closed source...those are the two main reasons why people stay away from Linux.

Sorry, but that's not quite right. XP is more efficient than Linux in terms of processor scheduling. I made a post elsewhere about this, where my computer science prof (in a course about Operating Systems) compared the processor scheduling between XP (tablet PC, actually), Debian Linux, and Solaris. To make a long story short, all the values in XP were within 8% of each other, while in Debian, one process gave an output of 150, while another one was at 1600.

It really depends on what you're asking about. Generally speaking, it's understood that XP is the best all-around OS out there for PCs.

[Mocht4R]

Well said Zxian.

If you're experimenting with linux, i suggest you use a really cruddy computer. It is really complex and needs much work to handle from "scratch". Thats all i can tell you about linux at this point.

[suryad]

Sorry, but that's not quite right. XP is more efficient than Linux in terms of processor scheduling. I made a post elsewhere about this, where my computer science prof (in a course about Operating Systems) compared the processor scheduling between XP (tablet PC, actually), Debian Linux, and Solaris. To make a long story short, all the values in XP were within 8% of each other, while in Debian, one process gave an output of 150, while another one was at 1600.

It really depends on what you're asking about. Generally speaking, it's understood that XP is the best all-around OS out there for PCs.

I have yet to see proof of that. I took an operating systems class and Linux is as good as they come. If XP is that good at processor scheduling then why would not it scale as well in huge multi proc systems?

[the-matrix]

Hey,

This may be a stupid question but i'm just wondering,

can someone tell me the real diff between linux and Win Xp? If there is any?

Title Edited - Please follow new posting rules from now on.

--Zxian

Hi wolf7448,

You should try Suse 10 there is an comercial free download and an open source free download the comercial one don`t need to be add more 3 part software for the open source version i have not jet try it

you need a cd or dvd burner with burning software that can burn iso image but you can download a live dvd of the comercial version in the links below and burn it the same way as the instal versions

According to my linux body it is true there is not many games most of the linux games are Strategic Games : you can see them all in the link just below this text :

http://www.happypenguin.org

http://www.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org

http://www.opensuse.org/Download

Good Luck

The-Matrix

Edited December 18, 2005 by the-matrix

[-I-]

Your computer sience Prof. is realy an interesting guy but, lest face it he is probebly in his mids 40s and at the time he was introduced to *nix systems, the only stable kernels where run from an UltraSparq I mainframe,

now a days, id be glad to cmpeate whith him running a series of test,

like performing a siries of test in office tasks setting up networking creating and editiong audio video pictures - and stuf like that, and in the mean time checking the system usage.

in proof: linux can be just as easy managable as windows, but has way more configuabillity.

for example there is this zenwalk linux, wich actualy responds about 10% quicker than windows 2000, on a celeron 1.7ghz laptop with SIS 640 chipset and 20gh 4500rpm harddisk and 256 SD100 ram

but certainly my choice for older hardware.

[suryad]

Is your post aimed at my post? Cause you kind of are supporting my post...

[Zxian]

I have yet to see proof of that. I took an operating systems class and Linux is as good as they come. If XP is that good at processor scheduling then why would not it scale as well in huge multi proc systems?

The test itself was done with a very simple program. It would generate 10 copies of itself using the "fork" command, meaning that there would be ten instances of the program all at the same "point" in the code at that time. From then on, it would continuously add 1 in a loop for 2 minutes. When it was done, it would print the value after 2 minutes back to the shell. All instances of the program had the same priority, meaning that if the OS did the proper job at CPU scheduling, all the instances should produce roughly the same number. Like I said, Debian did the worst of the three, while XP did the best. One of the roles of an operating system is to manage hardware resources. This is why I say that XP is more efficient than Linux.

I can see if I can get the source code for the program itself, for everyone's reference.

As for multi-processor systems, XP was only designed with at most 2 processors in mind (mostly for hyper-threading and dual core support). Windows 2003 was designed with several processors in mind, and was meant to be a multi-tasking OS.

When you say "as good as they come", on what basis? My example was with CPU scheduling. Various forms of Linux may have advantages elsewhere, but you'd have to be specific as to what and why.

Your computer sience Prof. is realy an interesting guy but, lest face it he is probebly in his mids 40s and at the time he was introduced to *nix systems, the only stable kernels where run from an UltraSparq I mainframe,

now a days, id be glad to cmpeate whith him running a series of test,

like performing a siries of test in office tasks setting up networking creating and editiong audio video pictures - and stuf like that, and in the mean time checking the system usage.

in proof: linux can be just as easy managable as windows, but has way more configuabillity.

for example there is this zenwalk linux, wich actualy responds about 10% quicker than windows 2000, on a celeron 1.7ghz laptop with SIS 640 chipset and 20gh 4500rpm harddisk and 256 SD100 ram

but certainly my choice for older hardware.

In proof, Linux does not have the same driver support as Windows. Sure, there are many reasons for it, but that's just the way things are. Read around on all the Linux forums, and you'll find many people who can't get their USB modems to work, or are having troubles with ATI video cards, or whatever.

As for my professor, he runs his work on just about every type of OS out there (Win98, 2K, XP, Linux - 4 different distros I think, Solaris, FreeBSD... need I go on?), so there's not really much bias to his opinions. The example that he gave was for demonstrational purposes, and there was no bias in his presentation. The program was perfectly fair across all platforms (hopefully I can show you for myself).

When you say that zenwalk responds 10% quicker, how are you basing this? Is it the speed with which a menu appears, or the time that it takes for identical tasks to complete? Sure, run Windows with BB4Win as your shell, and the shell will be just as responsive as BlackBox is for Linux. The underlying hardware management will still be the same.

As for your test and example (regarding zenwalk and Win2k), there's a whole other side of the story that you're not pointing out - ease of use. For 90% of the world out there, Windows is easier to use than Linux. This is mainly because Microsoft has a near monopoly on the operating system market, and most PC users today were brought up with Windows. If this weren't true, then there would be a larger proportion of Linux users in the world than there are.

What would truly be the "fastest" out there would be a straight up command line version of OpenBSD, but that's just for programs that don't need a GUI. It really depends on what you're doing. If you have to spend lots of time training your employees, then that's productivity and money lost. Why do you think that EA Games recently turned down 3000 free dual G5 systems from Apple for their graphics department, and decided to go with HP computers (running XP Pro) instead? They found that training their new employees to use OSX was more expensive than using PCs running Windows.