Pleng said:Sorry don't want to get in on the Windows vs Linux debate but felt I needed (nah I guess I didn't need, perhaps I wanted...) to point out a couple of things...
EvilDragon said:On the other hand, Windows is really bugging me since I switched to Linux mostly.
Want to update all apps on Linux? Simply do an upgrade. Finished.
On my Windows box, I have about 50 apps installed. Updating them means: Visiting every single website, downloading and running setup. Takes about a day to upgrade all those apps. A big Windows flaw, if you ask me.
Pretty much all Windows apps have an auto-update feature. And most can do updates without having to visit websites or download executables
There are also a lot of simple things that do annoy me on Windows:
As said, I have a lot of programs and therefore also have a lot of quickstart icons. They need about half the size of the taskbar. Of course, on the right, there's the tray - so in the middle there's very little space for the currently running tasks.
On Linux, this is easy: I simply put that to the top and keep my menu, quickstart items and trays on the bottom. On Windows? Not possible.
This is fixed on Windows 7. You can set icons to show themselves on the quickstart bat or not. There's a little button next to the quickstart which will display the hidden icons.
On old computers, Linux is also way better. The latest Linux still runs on old PIII machines. I have an optimized Arch Linux running. It only starts what I really need. I use a minimal GUI. The system runs snappier than another old P4 Windows machine.
Because you can't really optimize Windows. You can't really remove what you need. Yes, you can switch off services and things like that, but the plain GUI still needs a lot more CPU and RAM than an optimized Linux needs.
I tried using Ubuntu on my 5 year old Laptop (for uni work) and the display simply did not function correctly. The graphics driver didn't feature my screen's native resolution. Selecting a smaller resolution would make the display skewed, covered in red lines, doubled up and unusable, and selecting a mode bigger than the screen could handle meant I couldn't access the taskbar. The display didn't scroll when the mouse went off screen as I had come to expect from Linux distros.
Windows XP and 7 worked fine.
I had other issues trying to use KUbuntu on my mums PII 600 laptop. I couldn't find any way to downgrade the desktop environment, which was far to resource heavy for the laptop. Windows 2000 worked out of the box.
Maybe they're isolated incidents, who knows. But on the two recent occasions that I've tried to use Linux, I've had to resort back to Windows.
So, from an objective view:
Both Windows and Linux have flaws and both have their uses.
If you like flexibility and are not afraid of learning new things, Linux by far surpasses Windows.
If you like a standard system which everyone knows and that gets commercial support with drivers for the latest hardware, Windows surpasses Linux.
It's up to you
Now this is an opinion I can get along with. It's not often you hear Linux guys admit that Windows can be useful. And in fact, it's not often you hear Windows guys admit that Linux can be useful.
Anyway. There's no doubt in my mind that Linux was the best decision for the Pandora's OS
Linux was really the only option they had to make this device...
Last edited by a moderator: